Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/41/2022

Mr.Kieran Silva - Complainant(s)

Versus

m.s,Saraf Furniture Rep by its M.D - Opp.Party(s)

G.Karthikeyan

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 29.04.2022

Date of Disposal                : 20.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.41/2022

 

DATED THIS DAY THURSDAY THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

Mr.Kieran D’Silva,

“D’Silva Place”

134, INTUC Nagar Main Road,

Kadirvedu, chennai-600 066.                                                  ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

M/s. Saraf Furniture,

Rep by its M.D.,

RIICO Inustrial Area,

Kalyanapura Road,

Sardarshahr-331403,

Rajasthan

                                                                                       …..Opposite party.

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.G.Karthikeyan

 

 Counsel for opposite party                  : Ex-parte.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.54998/- received from the complainant together with interest at 18% p.a. from 24.11.2021 and to pay a sum of Rs.19729/- toward expense incurred for the repair of both the furniture along with interest 18% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.400000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony sustained by the complainant and cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that he has purchased a solid wood Maharaja Bed along with solidwood zig stool lamp and other necessary furnitures from the opposite party’s online furniture  sales portal insaraf.com on 13.11.2021.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.40357.30 dated 23.11.2021 through SBI debit card online. Further submitted that subsequent to the first order he has purchased a solid wood cubex dining table with 4 chairs.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.27999/- dated 24.11.2021 through UPI paytm online. The complainant submitted that both the orders were not delivered as per the estimated time and there was abnormal delay the opposite party’s end.  The complainant further submitted that he had written emails on various dates dated 01.12.2021, 03.12.2021 and 06.12.2021 seeking for the confirmation of the order status and its approximate delivery date.  When the complainant opened the package it was witnessed that the dining table was in a damaged condition with a crack on the left side and one of the legs of the dining table was short and it was unable to be seated properly on floor.  Due to this the dining table  was very shaky unstable and turned out to be in a unusable condition.  The complainant through reverted emails by the opposite party that the defect shall be attend promptly.  On the contrary the opposite party were just simply spinning pseudo promises to the complainant.  Eventually the opposite party had neither resorted repair nor replacement provided.  Further stated that the bed was finally delivered with embarrassing delay on 29.12.2021.  The same day when the package was opened it was noticed by the complainant that the opposite party have delivered the damage product. The total repair and for the replacement of the underneath mattress plywood and labour cost both he incurred to an approximate expense of Rs.19700/-.  The complainant stated that his purchase value of both the products is Rs.54998.00 is to be refunded and the same the complainant claims as a compensation.

2. Point for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this commission on the ground of territorial jurisdiction?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relies?

The complainant have filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A9 were marked on his side.  The opposite party were set exparte.

3. Point No.1:-

The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prayed for refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation for mental agony caused to him and for other reliefs.  As per the averment in the complaint the complainant had purchased Soli wood Maharaja Bed along with Stool lamp by making online payment on 23.11.2021 from the opposite party and also purchased solid wood Dining table with four chairs by making online payment on 24.11.2021  from the opposite party and further contended that both the items were not delivered as per the estimated delivery date and belatedly delivered and further when the complainant opened the package the complainant noticed damage of both the furniture’s for which he has spent a sum of Rs.19700/- towards repairing this furniture’s at his own cost and hence claim refund of the amount paid along with compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for the mental agony to the complainant by the opposite party.

4.  On perusal of document filed by the complainant which were marked as Ex.A1 to A9 it is found that the complainant has purchased furnitures by making through online payment from his place of residence which is shown as situated in Kadirvedu , Chennai-66 and the said furnitures which were sent through V Xpress logistics were delivered at Poonamalle branch and the opposite party address as found in the cause title is situated in Rajasthan State and as per the averment in the complaint no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission and as per Sec.34 (2) of CP Act 2019 since the complainant as well as opposite party were not residing or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this commission and since no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this commission it is found that the present complaint is not maintainable before this commission for want of territorial jurisdiction and the complaint has to be returned consequently for presenting before proper commission having jurisdiction. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

5.  Point No. 2 and 3:

Since it is found that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission it is not necessary to decide  and give any findings on the merits of the complaint regarding whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed in the complaint. Point 2 and 3 answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is ordered to be returned for submission before proper commission having territorial jurisdiction.  No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20^th  day of October 2022.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	20.12.2021	Invoice copy of Maharaja cot and others INSF452212133.
Ex. A2	24.11.2021	Invoice copy of solid wood dining table.
Ex. A3	29.12.2021	Opposite party couriered Vxpress logistics delivery POD’s
Ex.A4	14.12.2021 & 20.01.2022	Exchange of emails from opposite party customer support team.
Ex.A5		Furnitures damaged pictures.
Ex.A6	12.02.2022	Notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A7		Acknowledgement from the opposite party.
Ex.A8	23.11.2021 & 24.11.2021	Bank statements of payment made for both the furnitures.
Ex.A9	24.01.2022	Repaired bill.

 

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT