Judgment dt.: 1-6-2016
This is a complaint made by one Bimal Krishna Majumder, son of Jatindra Mohan Majumder, resident of 41A Panchanantala Lane, Behala, Kolkata-700 034 against Manager, M/s, Styles Spa Furniture Ltd., 1st floor, 123/3 N.S.C. Bose Rd., Netaji Nagar, Kolkata- 700 040 and Manager, M/S Styles Spa Furniture Ltd., G106, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur, Chennai-602 003, Tamil Nadu, praying for immediate withdrawal of defective furniture supplied and replace them without defect or refund of his money along with interest till the date of refund @ Rs.12/- p.a. and direction upon the opposite party to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the CPAct and also for payment of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation for prolonged harassment and mental agony and Rs.70,000/- for rental value of occupation of space of flat and Rs.10,000/- as cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased some furniture for Rs.2,27,283/- from supplier at Camac Street where he paid Rs.2,27,318/- during September, 2012. The said supplier failed to deliver the furniture within 5/6 days as per commitment. The supplier supplied all the items by 2.11.2012. It was found that the sofa set was defective and they promised to replace the same within a period of one month. But till date opposite party did not replace it. Complainant informed this to OPs over phone on several occasions, but, of no use. Even after a lapse of 24 months his grievances were not settled. He visited on several occasions the show room. But the sofa set was not replaced. So he made a complaint to the Consumer Affairs Dept. where his problems could not be solved and he was advised to approach this Forum.
On the basis of above facts, the complaint was admitted and notices were served. But opposite parties did not appear. So, the case was heard ex-parte.
Decisions with reasons.
Complainant has filed several Xerox copy of the documents in order to establish the allegations and conducted this case personally himself.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the complaint it appears that Complainant has stated that he purchased some furniture. He has not mentioned a specific as to what furniture he purchased and what price he paid for the furniture purchased by him. He has insisted on replacement of sofa set but nowhere from the document it is clear as to what was the price of sofa set. So in such circumstances, we are not in a position to assess as to what the complainant is claiming.
No doubt opposite party did not appear to contest the allegation of the complainant but the person who comes for relief has to be free specific.
Considering the prayer No.1, it appears that he has prayed for withdrawal of defective furniture supplied to him. But has not named what are the defective furniture. He has mentioned the total value of the furniture for which he paid. But unless he specifically pleads the price of the furniture, it is difficult to ascertain what are the price of the sofa set and other furniture. He has also not mentioned as to whether all the furniture which he purchased are not of use or only sofa set.
So, it appears that these prayers are vague and ambiguous and hence Complainant cannot be granted any relief.
Hence
O R D E R E D
Complaint and the same CC/86/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.
