The brief facts of the case is that he advanced a sum of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- vide receipt no. 10154 and 10155 in cash and he also paid a sum of Rs.1,62,570/- only by cheque No. 42002180 dt. 20.7.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India Jamui Branch, Bihar in favour of the opposite party no. 1 against full and final order payments of the goods.
The complainant also states that he issued a non C.T.S. Cheque but after receiving instructions from opposite party no. 1 he issued another C.T.S. cheque being no. 2017723 dt. 30.7.2014 drawn upon Bank of India, Jamui Branch. In this connection it is mentioned that on receipt of the Non C.T.S. cheque dt. 20.7.2014 opposite party no.1 issued a receipt being no. 10157 dt. 26.7.2014 acknowledging the payment of Rs.1,62,570/- vide Non C.T.S cheque no. 42002180 dt. 20.7.2014.
The complainant also states that he received 17 packets of goods on 28.7.2014 vide delivery challan no. 6757 dt. 28.7.2014. After inspecting the packets which contained the “Prism Coffee Table” the complainant found that the same was not sealed and packed properly, the complainant finding no other alternative returned back the Prism Coffee Table on 1.8.2014 to the men/agent of the opposite party no. 1 when they had come to the complainant’s premises to deliver a Flutter dressing table with stool vide challan no. 7078 dt. 1.8.2014 said men of the opposite party no.1 endorsed the return of the prism coffee table and took back the said prism coffee table with an assurance to deliver a properly packed and sealed coffee table; the said endorsement was signed by the agent of the opposite party no. 1.
The complainant further states that when he asked the man of the opposite party no.1 as to why they had delivered a ‘flutter dressing table with stool’ instead of ‘squadron dressing table with stool’ men of the opposite party no. 1 told him that opposite party no.2 had already discontinued manufacturing of Squadron dressing table with stool. In this connection it is mentioned that such act of opposite party no. 1 represents unfair trade practice and till date the said prism coffee table has not been delivered to the complainant.
The complainant also states that on 31.8.2014 he received a Godrej Aura T.V. Unit/Trolley and on 31.7.2014 the mechanic of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 came to the complainant’s residence for the purpose of fitting the above mentioned order and then he disclosed to the complainant that two panels of identical shape of the same side of Zurina Wardrobe drawer had been delivered in the Cartoon instead of two panels of opposite nature and as a result of same the Zurina Wardrobe drawer could not be fitted and the same would be fitted only when one of the panels is replaced with a panel of opposite nature and he also found three pieces of locks i.e. 2 door locks and 1 drawer lock missing in the cartoon which contained the said Zurina wardrobe drawer. Subsequently on 7.9.2014 the complainant received door locks from the men of opposite party no. 2, but the above noted drawer lock has not been delivered till date and the Zurina Wardrobe drawer is lying unused. Such act of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 represent not only manufacturing error but also gross deficiency in service not expected of a man of ordinary prudence.
The complainant further states that on 3.8.2014 at the time of fitting the flutter dressing table found some marks and stains on the mirror then he requested the opposite party no. 1 to change the glass of the mirror which the opposite party no. 1 assured to do but till now the opposite party no. 1 has not changed it.
The complainant also states that again on 7.9.2014 the men of the opposite parties’ came to fit the Aura T.V. Unit and at the time of fitting the same he found 4 essential parts of the said T.V. Unit/trolley missing in the box containing the T.V. Unit/ trolley and instead of these essential parts extra parts of a T.V. Unit/trolley were found which were of no use for the purpose of Aura T.V. Unit/trolley so he went back and unable to fit the Aura T.V. Unit/trolley.
The complainant also reported about the deficiency of service of the opposite parties’ to the opposite parties but till now the said essential parts have neither been supplied nor there has been any response on behalf of them. As a result of that the Aura T.V. Unit/ trolley could not be fitted.
The complainant also states that the opposite party no. 1 has not supplied a proper cash memo in respect of the goods delivered to him and he already lodged a complaint against the opposite parties’ but till date no corrective measures have been taken by them to find other alternative. So, finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case praying directions upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the harassment, mental agony and anxiety and to deliver the prism coffee table and drawer lock of Zurina Wardrobe drawer and 4 essential Aura T.V. unit trolley in exchange of wrongly supplied 3 parts Aura T.V. Unit and to replace one of the panels of Zurina Wardrobe drawer with a panel of opposite nature and character and to change the glass of the mirror of the flutter dressing table.
The opposite party No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that it is not true that after inspecting the packet which contained the “Prism Coffee Table” the complainant found that the same was not sealed and packed properly, the complainant finding no other alternative returned back the Prism Coffee Table or that on 1.8.2014 to the agent of the opposite party no. 1 when they had come to the complainant’s premises to deliver a flutter dressing table with stool dt. 1.8.2014, the said agent endorsed the return of the Prism Coffee Table or that took back the said Prism Coffee Table with an assurance to deliver a properly packed and sealed coffee table, the said endorsement was signed by the said agent.
The opposite party no. 1 also stated that it is false to say that when the complainant asked the man of the opposite party no. 1 as to why they had delivered a flutter dressing table with stool instead of “Squadro dressing table with Stool” men of opposite party no. 1 told the complainant that opposite party no. 2 had already discontinued manufacturing squadron dressing table with stool and it is not that be it mentioned in this connection that such act on the part of opposite party no. 1 represents unfair trade practice or that till date the prism coffee table has not been delivered to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 also stated that it is not true that on 31.7.2014 mechanic of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 came to the complainant’s residence for the purpose of fitting the described goods or that he found several defects in the goods supplied by the opposite party no. 1 or that he disclosed to the complainant that two panels of identical shape of the same side of Zurina Wardrobe drawer had been delivered in the Cartoon instead of two panels of opposite nature or that as a result of same the Zurina Wardrobe drawer could not be fitted or that the same would be fitted only when one of the panels was replaced with a panel of opposite nature or that further said the agent of opposite party no. 1 found three pieces of locks missing in the cartoon which contained the said Zurina Wardrobe drawer.
The opposite party no. 1 further stated that it is false to state that subsequently on7.9.2014 the complainant received from the agent of opposite party no. 2 door locks or that the above noted drawer lock has not been delivered by the agent of opposite party till date or that the Zurina Wardrobe drawer is lying unused and such act on the part of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 represents not only manufacturing error or that also gross deficiency in service not expected of a man of ordinary prudence or that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 acted in a lackadaisical manner or that displayed a remarkable lack of sensitivity or that gross deficiency in service for which they are bound to pay heavy damage to the complainant.
The opposite party no. 1 also stated that it is not true that on 3.8.2014 the said agent at the time of fitting the flutter dressing table found some marks and stains on the mirror and then the complainant requested the opposite party no. 1 to change the glass of the mirror which the opposite party no. 1 assured to do but till now the opposite party no. 1 has not changed the glass.
The opposite party no. 1 also states that it is false to state that the complainant again reported to both the opposite parties or that the said matter involving serious deficiency in service of the opposite parties’ but till now the said essential parts have neither been supplied nor there has been any response on behalf of the opposite parties’ and as a result of such deficiency in service the Aura T.V Unit/ Trolley could not be fitted or that is of no use to the complainant and it is not true that it is also very surprising that the opposite party no.1 has not supplied the complainant with a proper cash memo in respect of the goods delivered.
The opposite party no. 1 also stated that it is not true that the complainant has already lodged complaint with opposite parties vide letter dt. 27.9.2014 and has also send reminders dt. 13.11.2014 but till date no corrective measures have been taken by the opposite parties to address the gross deficiency in service on their part the finding no other alternatives the complainant sent notice dt. 17.2.2015 regarding the above matter to opposite parties through his Ld. Lawyer wherein a period of one month was granted to the opposite parties for rectifying the above defects and in spite of receiving the said notice the opposite parties did not take any corrective measure. The opposite party no. 1 further stated that the petitioner did not come before this Forum with clean hands so the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief as prayed for and the instant case of the petitioner will be dismissed with cost. The opposite party no.2 despite receiving notice did not turn up and failed to filed written version so the proceeding run ex-parte against him vide order No.10, dated 21.4.2016. Complainant files evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition so it is needless to discus.
After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of argument and documents in the case record and hearing the arguments it appears that the complainant being a consumer of the opposite party paid a sum of Rs.3000/- & Rs.2000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.1,62,570/- to purchase a few furniture’s from the opposite party No.1. The payments of the complainant are not disputed at all as the opposite party issued receipts in respect of payments. The Xerox copies of the said receipts are in the case record. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the opposite party No.1 failed to supply the goods as per purchase schedule. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party No.1&2 but his efforts of getting remedy from the opposite party remained unheeded. So the complainant filed the instant complaint before this forum praying directions upon the opposite party. The answering opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum and filed written version denying the allegations leveled against him and averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and further averred that the complainant claimed certain articles which are at present out of market and the said matter has been duly communicated to the complainant verbally but the complainant in order to take advantage of the situation is trying to blackmail the opposite party No.1 by instituting the instant case before the Forum against the opposite party No.1 with false and frivolous allegations having no basis at all. The complainant in order to prove his case prayed local inspection before this Forum and this Forum vide its order dated 30.8.2017 allowed the commission petition and appointed advocate commissioner and Ld. Commissioner filed commission report before this Forum which is accepted vide order dated 13.6.2018. It appears from the commissioner’s report that the Prism Coffee Table was returned by the complainant, the representative of the opposite party No.1 admitted that there is a mirror on the flutter dressing table that bears stain marks and it is due to pasting problem. The Aura TV unit / trolley is lying unused in packed condition and the complainant alleged that due to lack of necessary parts it could not be fitted. There was no drawer lock in the Zurina wardrobe drawer. As the panels are identical not of opposite direction so it could not be fitted.
Complainant corresponded the opposite parties several times and requested to deliver the Prism coffee Table, the drawer lock of Zurina wardrobe drawer, replace one of the panels of Zurina wardrobe drawer with a panel of the opposite nature, change the glass of the mirror flutter dressing table and to supply proper cash memo in respect of all the goods purchased but the opposite party pit no bid at the utterance of the complainant which tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. For which the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as ascertained by this Forum.
Upon a careful consideration it is well established that opposite party No.1 is deficient in providing service to this complainant. Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complainant abled to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite party for non supplying a few parts of the furniture and supplying a few defective furniture’s by adducing cogent document/evidence so the prayer of the complainant is allowed in part. However considering the facts and circumstances there is order as to cost. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant abled to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite party in respect of non supplying a few parts of the furniture, supplying a few defective furniture’s and non supplying the cash memo.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.132 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party No.1 and ex parte against the opposite No.2, with a litigation cost of Rs.8000/- to be paid by the opposite party No.1.
The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to supply the furniture’s which are not supplied till date or found defective and to supply the parts for fitting the furniture already supplied in accordance with the delivery challan dated 28.7.2014 and to supply cash memo within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The opposite parties No.1 is also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- to this complainant for mental pain and agony within the time framed.
Opposite Party no.2 is exonerated from this proceeding.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Partyno.1 shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
