IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                                         CASE No.  CC/47/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                       Date of Disposal:

     20.03.18                                    20.04.18                                     07.12.22

Complainant: Moumita Das Sarkar

W/0- Shamik Sarkar,Sonar Bangla Apartment,

Flat No- 4A, 16/1, Swarnamoyee Road,

PO & PS- Berhampore Town, Pin- 742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party:1. Manager, MOBEL India Pvt. Ltd 

               62/B, N.S.Road,Room No- 15, Kolkata- 700001

           2. Manager, Franchise Bazaar Style Retail Pvt. Ltd.

1st Floor Express Bazar, NH34,

 Mohona Bus Stand, PO & PS- Berhampore,

 Pin- 742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Subhash Saha.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1&2        : Tarun Chaktsborty.

   Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

        Sri. Subir Sinha Roy……………………………….Member.                        

                     Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

  Sri.Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

             One Moumita Das Sarkar (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Mobel India Pvt Ltd. & Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

             The Complainant purchased one bed, dresser, tool, night stand, ware drove from OP No.2 who is franchise of OP No.1, so called reputed Company at a price of Rs.49,200.05/- in the month of July 2016. OP No.2 delivered the said materials to the Complainant and assured good quality of the product. But all the assurance as to quality of the product has become night mare. Within few months all the products got fungus, plywood of the bed has been broken, chanel of drawer has been dislocated. These types of problems have been informed to your company/franchise on various occasions verbally or through mail. Lastly in the month of August 2017, the only tool got replaced. In between this one year all the items got affected with fungal infection and again after several follow ups and visit service personal came to Complainant’s house and applied some anti fungal chemicals on the furniture and assured that this type of fungal infection would not reappear. But the utter surprise only after 15-20 days the same problem was cropped up again. Wooden plank got bent just putting some garments on it. There have been cracks and bending of the bed and at that time the hydraulic of the bed was not working properly, drawers of the dressers and stool were malfunctioning and the Complainant had to visit OP No.2 for one problem or other for repairs almost every month from the date of purchase. Every time the mechanic had come and gone away by doing make shift job without giving proper solution to any of the problems. After that several correspondences were made to OP No.1 and 2. But the Complainant never got any proper relief either returning back all damaged, defective furniture or returning consideration money.

            On 20.11.17, OP No.2 collected Rs.710/- for rendering service. But till to date no representative or service man visited the house of the Complainant to give proper service of the defective purchased furniture.

            The Complainant on previous occasion requested to replace the defective furniture with new well one, but both the OPs paid no heed. Being a so called reputed company OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 have cheated the Complainant by supplying defective furniture. The Complainant getting no other alternative served a notice to OPs on 17.01.18 for proper redressal. On 05.02.18 legal advisor of OP No.1 sent a reply to the Complainant wherein he admitted the allegation and expressed their willingness to set the article right. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice. The furniture is now in a unusable condition. These acts of OP No.1 and 2 are clear deficiencies in service coupled with unfair trade practice. The Complainant having found no other alternative has filed the instant complaint for proper redressal.

            OP No.1 filed written version on 22.06.18. OP No.2 also filed written version on 22.06.18. Both the OPs are contesting the case contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable.          

            The specific case of the OPs is that the Complainant purchased all 4 articles in exchange of two old articles at a huge discount of Rs.36,500/- and paid Rs.42,969/- added with vat of Rs. 6,230.58p. as against cost of Rs.85,500/- with one year warranty from the date of invoice i.e. upto 05.07.17.

            The OPs further submit that after expiry of warranty period at the request of the Complainant as a good gesture effect of fungus in some articles were set right by the expert carpenter by the OP No.1 and according to said carpenter fungus etc. caused due to in action of the Complainant and her family members.

            OP No.2 specifically states in his written version that the Complainant deposited Rs.710/- towards the cost of above referred setting right but the Complainant failed and neglected to fix up a specific date for inspection as well as set right of the articles by the expert carpenter of the OP No.1.

            Both the OPs pray for dismissal of the case.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that he is a consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The point to be noted is that OPs were found absent on call at the time of hearing argument but they have filed written notes of argument on 18.11.22. However, we peruse the materials on record and we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer. Hence, the Point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point no.2&3

Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

It is the case of the Complainant that she purchased one bed, dresser, tool, night stand, ware drove from OP No.2 who is franchise of OP No.1, so called reputed Company at a price of Rs.49,200.05/- in the month of July 2016. OP No.2 delivered the said materials to the Complainant and assured good quality of the product.

The specific case of the OPs is that the Complainant purchased all 4 articles in exchange of two old articles at a huge discount of Rs.36,500/- and paid Rs.42,969/- added with vat of Rs. 6,230.58p. as against cost of Rs.85,500/- with one year warranty from the date of invoice i.e. upto 05.07.17.

Photocopy of the order booking form is available in the case record where from we find the four articles were delivered to the Complainant in exchange of two old articles and Rs. 42,969/- added with vat of Rs. 6,230.58p. as against cost of Rs.85,500/-. Here we find that the Complainant suppressed the material fact.

It is the specific case of the OPs that the Complainant purchased all four articles with one year warranty from the date of invoice i.e. upto 05.07.17. But it is a matter of regret the said invoice is not available in the case record. However, it is coming out from the complaint that the machine of the OP No.2 had visited the house of the Complainant and done some shift job for avoiding fungus.

From the materials on record we find that it is admitted position that the Complainant deposited Rs.710/- towards the cost of above referred setting right. It is also admitted position that the said Rs.710/- is still in hands of the OP No.2. Such being the position the OP No.2 is required to be directed to do the repair work once again, particularly when we find that the Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1, Mobel India Pvt. Ltd. informed the Ld. Adv. of the Complainant to the effect, ‘’Be it noted that we are ready and willing to set at right the articles for which the Complaints have been made by your client……”

In view of the matter discussed above we are of the view that both the OPs are required to be directed to do the repair work once again as they have accepted Rs.710/- from the Complainant and said Rs.710/- is still lying in their hands.

     Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 20.03.18 and admitted on 20.04.18. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is allowed in part.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                            Ordered

that the Complaint Case being No. CC/47/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OPs but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

        OPs are jointly and severely liable to do the repair work in respect of the furniture purchased by the Complainant from the OPs as Rs.710/- paid by the Complainant is still lying in the hands of the OPs.

        The OPs are directed to do the repair work in respect of the furniture purchased by the Complainant from the OPs within 45 days from the date of this order.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

 Member                                                 Member                                        President.