PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT 

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had paid amount of Rs.7,11,000/- to the Opponent on 8^th October, 2012 for complete make over of his home. The staff of the Opponent visited the house of the Complainant and took measurement.  The complainant was asked to pay full amount three days prior to deliver of furniture. After payment, furniture was not delivered.  It was delivered on 29^th November, 2012. The furniture was in bad shape. When the complaint was made the Opponent assured to replace or repair the same. In spite of several requests, it was not replaced.  There was defect in the hall unit, Glass installed inside was not in proper shape, dining set chair were broken and on sofa chair there was patch up work. There was correspondence with the Opponent but there was no response therefore the complainant has filed this complaint for reimbursement of Rs.1,72,489/-. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh towards mental agony and cost of proceeding Rs.10,000/-.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement. The payment of Rs.7,11,000/- is admitted.  The staff of the Opponent visited the house of the complainant on 24^th August, 2012.  Measurement was taken as per instruction of the complainant.  The furniture was ready for delivery and accordingly it was delivered on 16^th October, 2012, 25^th October, 2012 and 29^th November, 2012. There was no complaint.  The renovation work was going on in the house of the complainant therefore furniture was kept in messy condition.  The Opponent showed willingness to replace dining chairs and accordingly letter were issued to the complainant but there was no response.  The complainant himself neglected. However, the Opponent was ready to cooperate as a gesture of goodwill.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute about the payment of Rs.7,11,000/- towards furniture work. The opponent delivered the furniture. According to the complainant, it was defective. As per complaint, para 6, the Hall Unit was not properly fitted, Glass installed inside was not properly cut, Dining Set chair was broken and there was patch up work on sofa set. In the complaint, the complainant has claimed reimbursement for faulty furniture amounting to Rs.1,72,489/-.  The complainant has not given details for calculation of this figure.  As per complaint, Hall Unit was not properly fitted.  It is denied by the opponent.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that Hall Unit was not properly fitted.  Similarly, the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that glass installed inside was not properly cut.  It is settled law that the complainant has to prove his own case unless it is admitted by the other side.  Both the abovesaid defects are denied by the opponent and there is no proper evidence to prove it.

5)                According to the complainant, dining chairs were broken.  The opponent issued letter to the complainant and showed willingness to replace the same.  In the written statement also, the opponent showed willingness to replace the dining chairs.  Considering this readiness of the opponent, we think it will be proper to direct the opponent to replace the dining chairs. According to the complainant, there was patch up work on the sofa set. The complainant has produced photographs of sofa set showing the defects in the sofa set.  According to the opponent, there is no evidence on record as to when these photographs were taken by the complainant.  It is true that there is nothing on record to show the date and time of these photographs.  At this juncture, we can not ignore the fact that the complaint is filed by the complainant himself without engaging the services of any advocate.  The opponent is the Company running business.  The opponent is expected to carry out the work to the satisfaction of the customer.  The complainant lodged his protest at the very beginning.  Earlier, there was no response.  But, soon after the complaint filed in this Forum, the opponent issued letter dated 20^th June, 2013 and 26^th June, 2013 showing its willingness to solve the issue.  Considering this bonafideness on the part of the opponent, we think it just to direct the opponent to repair the sofa set in proper condition. 

6)                Considering the above discussion, we came to conclusion that it will be proper to direct the opponent to replace the dining chairs and repair the sofa set.  In view of these directions it is not necessary to direct the opponent to pay any amount by way of reimbursement. In fact, it was necessary for the opponent to respond the complainant prior to filing of the complaint.  As there was no response, the complainant was compelled to file this complaint.  Therefore, the opponent is liable to pay cost of this litigation Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The Opponent is directed to replace the dining chairs.
3. The Opponent is further directed to repair the sofa set in proper condition
4. The Opponent is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of this proceeding.
5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 20^th November, 2014