SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

     Complainant filed this complaint against opposite party   to get an order directing  to deliver the furniture as per  order and  represent the cheque or collect the amount from the  complainant together with compensation  and cost.

   Complainant’s  case is that in the month of July 2021, the complainant  placed order for furniture like mattress, sofa, dining table, dining chair  etc were specifically ordered for made in Teak wood and  the amount is also arrived as per the quality  of wood. It is submitted that altogether 3 bills was made on the same day and cheque issued for the same was encahsed by the OP forRs.70,000/- each and  cheque for Rs.93,000/- was stopped  by the complainant since  OP supplied  the furniture not as per  order and samples shown, OP used  low quality of wood and polished to look like  teak wood.  The sofa set ordered as per bill No.3 for Rs.60,000/- was not delivered.  Matter informed to OP and the  manger of OP came to the house of complainant and having convinced the defects and non delivery of sofa set he promised to take back the defective  furniture further promised not to present the cheque till re delivery.  OP adopted unfair trade  practice  and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

    After receiving notice OP entered appearance and filed  version stating that the complainant came to the OP shop and purchased mattress, sofa, dining table and chair  and the OP delivered  those items promptly.  Complainant  issued a cheque   No.676063  for Rs.93,000/-.  But, later  he began to make false  allegations against  OP alleging that the items purchased him are not  teak woods and all the items were not  delivered to him. Consequently , the cheque issued by the complainant  bounced and this OP was constrained to  initiate the legal proceedings against the complainant and the STC No.1059/2021 is pending  before  the JFCM Court No.1 Kannur for the appearance of the accused.  Complainant  himself  selected  the items satisfying  the quality and price. The materials purchased from  the OP  are of good quality and standard one  available in the market.   There is no deficiency  of service on their part , hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

    While  the pendency of this case,  complainant has taken steps to appoint  an Advocate commissioner to inspect the premises of  complainant and to submit report regarding the furniture supplied by  the OP.  As per that, the advocate commissioner  who was appointed by this commission has submitted  report along with photos.

    At the evidence  stage complainant filed his proof affidavit and documents.  He was examined as PW1.  Marked Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.C1 series.  PW1 was subject to cross examined for the  OP.  OP has not adduced evidence.  After that  learned counsel of OP made argument.

      The first plea raised by the OP is that complainant is not a  consumer of OP as he has not  pay any consideration to OP towards the purchasing of the furniture alleged in this case.  OP contended that complainant purchased  mattress, sofa, dining table and dining  chair according to his choice from the OP’s shop and  the OP delivered those items  to the complainant’s house.  Complainant issued a cheque for an amount of  Rs.93,000/-, but later he began to make false allegations against  the OP alleging that the items  purchased him are not teak woods and all the purchased items were not delivered.  Consequently the cheque  was bounced.  On the other hand complainant averred that the two cheques of Rs.70,000/- given by him to OP were encashed .

   For proving the said contention complainant did not submit any materials  since OP is objecting  the payment made by the complainant,  complainant could have submitted copy of cheques or bank statement etc. As far as  we are concerned that, there is no material  to show that there is consideration from the side of  complainant to OP.  Further no tax invoice is produced to  establish, which items he had purchased from OP’s shop.  Then only we can  realize , that the items purchased by the complainant were not delivered. Though the Advocate commissioner submitted  report, it  also does not  reveal , the quality of wood, the list of non-delivery items etc.  In Et.C1 series, there is no severe damage to the furniture can be revealed.

  Hence from the available facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot come to a conclusion that complainant became  consumer of OP and  there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is a fact that  the cheque case is pending  between parties.

   As stated above, complainant fails and hence it is dismissed .  No order as to cost.

Exts:

A1-Copy of lawyer notice

A2-Reply notice

A3-Registration certificate GST-REG-6

C1 series- Commission report with photos(14 in Nos)

PW1-Pradeepan.P.V- complainant.

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR