Judgment : Dt.4.12.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Smt. Sipra Sengupta, wife of Late Trishit Ranjan Sengupta, residing at (127) 354/1, Raja Ram Mohon Roy Road, Marjit Appartment, 2nd floor, flat No.201, Barisha, Kolkata-700 008 against Manjusha (Bengal Emporium), West Bengal Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of West Bengal undertaking), Karuanagan, Sector-III, Block 1B-181, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700 066 and also at Dakhinapan Showroom, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 045, OP praying for a direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.13,600/- towards the purchased article along with 12% interest and another direction upon the OP to replace the defective sofa set which was delivered to the Complainant and still lying there and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is an old lady aged about 77 years residing at Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Marjit apartment. She is very much fond about the handicraft items produced by Manjusha (Bengal Emporium) and she is the bona fide customer of these items. She was in need of sofa set for her drawing room. She decided to purchase a sofa set from Manjusha from their Dakshinapan show room. Complainant entrusted her only daughter Sutapa Sengupta to purchase the sofa set from Dakshinapan show room. As per advise of the Complainant, Sutapa Sengupta – daughter of the Complainant went to the show room at Dakshinapan on 4.4.2016. After visiting the said show room, Sutapa Senguta – daughter of the Complainant selected a cane sofa, three seater, but on thorough inspection it was found that the sofa set was defective. The matter was brought to the notice of the manager of the show room where she was told by the manager that if your purchase it may be replaced for a fresh one and the said proposal was accepted by the daughter of the Complainant being convinced with the assurance of the manager, the daughter of the Complainant paid Rs.13,600/- as total cost of the sofa set along with delivery charges and the cash memo was raised in the name of the Complainant. After a gap of nearly 10 days, the Complainant contacted the manager of the show room over telephone to know the reason for non delivery of the said sofa set within 7 days. Again after a gap of 20 days the daughter of the Complainant visited the Dakshinapan and also seen that the previous defective sofa set was still lying on the floor and asked the manager when her order will be executed by replacing a new one sofa set, on which the manager told that within a month it will be given. After assurance of the manager the booked sofa set was not delivered till May, 2016. After several chasing over telephone as well as personal contact, the manager of the Manjusha authority delivered a sofa set on 26.6.2016. At the time of deliver it was found that the sofa set which was defective lying with the show room was delivered by the delivery man and the Complainant asked the delivery man not to deliver the defective sofa to her house and it is better to take back. But the delivery man told that he is not concerned with the other issues excepting the delivery of the article. Having no other alternative the Complainant made an appeal to the manager of Manjusha stating the acts and harassment of the Complainant for a simple issue. But no effort was taken by the Manjusha authority for final disposal of this appeal. Complainant was being harassed day by day and visited the show room for replacement. But, nothing was done. Complainant lodged a complaint against the Manjusha authority to the Lake Police Station. The said sofa set is still lying at the house of the Complainant. Having no other alternative, Complainant filed this case.
OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint petition. In the written version OP stated that Complainant purchased a three seater cane sofa set from Dhakuria Show room on 4.4.2016 vide cash memo No.57804 dt.4.4.2016 and the gross price of the product is Rs.8,804/-, but she purchased the material when out Corporation declared 10% discount of the product and she paid only Rs.7,924/-. Our Corporation never provide any transportation facility to deliver the goods at their place. Customer to arrange the transport in their own. The sale is completed at our show room as soon as the customer paid the price and takes the goods from the show room. After purchase the material Smt. Sengupta told our show room to keep the material because her sister would come to see the sofa set. Further, it is stated in the written version that Complainant wanted to take refund of the price, but our show room in charge refused to refund the amount since it was not possible as per norms of the Corporation. Being aggrieved, she reported the matter to O.C. and a senior police officer intervened and as a settlement of the purchase she took the material finally on 26.6.2016. Due to intervention of the Police Officer, she wrote a letter to the in-charge of Dhakuria show room that the material which was purchased by her is defective one and claimed Rs.12,750/- and afterwards she regularly visited the Dhakuria show room for a settlement of her claim. She submitted a cash memo which was paid by her to someone else for polish, glass, cushion, etc. amounting to Rs.4,800/-. Smt. Sengupta, the Complainant, made a prayer to Assistant Director of Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, West Bengal, wherein she prayed for replacement of the sofa furniture. Further, the OP was agreed to replace the sofa set of same price provided the same sofa et is returned by her in a good condition.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein the Complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP did not file questionnaire. OP also did not file evidence to rebut the allegations of the complaint petition.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the prayers made in the complaint petition.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the Complainant seeks a direction upon the OP to return the total consideration of Rs.13,600/-.
In this regard, Complainant has filed a Xerox copy of receipt showing that she paid Rs.7,924/- to Manjusha. Another Xerox copy is filed it reveals that she paid Rs.4,800 to somebody else. This payment has not been made to Manjusha. She wrote letter to the manager, which is annexure B on 21.7.2016 wherein she has prayed for refund of Rs.12,750/-. She also made a complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Lake Police Station. From the documents, affidavit-in-chief, written version of the OP make it clear that Complainant paid to the OP only Rs.7,980/- and she can get refund only Rs.7,980/-. OP in its written version has admitted the allegation of the Complainant and is ready to replace the sofa set provided it is returned to it in a good condition. The above which OP has made is a subjective fact. Good condition may be for one person and may not be for other. In the circumstance, it would be justified if this Forum directs the OP to refund Rs.7,924/- to the Complainant after she returns the sofa to the OP.
So far as the question of compensation and litigation cost are concerned, in our view those do not appear to be justified.
Hence,
ordered
CC/260/2017 and the same is allowed in part on contest. OP is directed to refund Rs.7,924/- provided the sofa set is taken to the Manjusha show room, Dakshinapan by the Complainant.
