Date of Filing: 18.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:25.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 726 OF 2008<br /> Sri Vasantha Kumar<br /> S/o. Late M.N. Rameshwarsa<br /> R/at No. 3, Santhusapet<br /> Bangalore 560 053 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Sri MaruthiRao T<br /> Proprietor of Designo<br /> No. 12/1, Shamarao Compound<br /> Lalbagh Road, Mission Road Cross<br /> Bangalore 560 027 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant’s son was suffering from cancer, severe back ache, legs pain and swelling. Complainant decided to buy a comfortable chair to his son. On 24.12.2007 complainant visited Lazboy showroom in West of Chord Road. He purchased a recliner sofa for Rs. 43,000/- and amount was paid through cheque. It is the case of the complainant that the recliner sofa was not comfortable for his son. Complainant visited the showroom and explained about the problems faced. The Lazboy showroom Manager informed the complainant to visit opposite party showroom. Then he visited the showroom of opposite party. Manager showed one chair which has orthopedic recliner heat and power controller to operate. The cost of the said chair was Rs. 1,23,000/- and after exchanging the earlier chair opposite party collected balance amount of Rs. 80,000/- through cheque dated 07.01.2008. On the date of purchase the opposite party assured the complainant that the recliner could be operated by the patient, the cotton seat would make patient comfortable, the sitting / sleeping position will make the patient comfortable and it gives sufficient heat and it will give relief. On the assurance and guarantee patient started to use the chair but it has not given him sufficient heat to reduce pain and sitting and sleeping position is also not comfortable. Complainant reported the matter to opposite party on 3 times. The opposite party assured the complainant to rectify the same but opposite party did not rectify the defects. Complainant issued legal notice on 29.01.2008 calling upon the opposite party to take back the chair and replace the good condition chair otherwise return the amount. Opposite party replied denying the contentions. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite party to take back the chair and return amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- and also for damages.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party was put in appearance through his advocate. Defence version filed stating that the complainant has purchased Grand Canyon for Rs. 43,000/-. Complainant being satisfied with the Luxury Lift requested the opposite party to deliver the luxury lift recliner on approval basis and take back the recliner chair Grand Canyon purchased by him from Rajajinagar Showroom and deduct the cost of the same from the cost of Luxury Lift recliner. On the special request of the complainant the opposite party agreed to have the Luxury Lift recliner delivered to the complainant on approval basis. Complainant after receiving the recliner chair from the opposite party utilised the same and upon being satisfied of its efficacy and comfort complainant requested the opposite party to take back the recliner chair and deduct the cost of the same from the cost of the Luxury Lift. Accordingly, the complainant has made the balance payment on 07.01.2008. The opposite party has replied to the legal notice. Opposite party is dealer of luxury furniture. The allegations of cheating and deficiency in service are absolutely false and hence denied. The opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavits are filed by both the parties. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. I have gone through the pleadings and documents. During the course of argument the learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the son of the complainant was suffering from cancer and died on 24.04.2008. The death certificate has been produced. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased Grand Canyon Chair for Rs. 43,000/- from the Lazboy Showroom, West of Chord Road, Bangalore. The invoice dated 24.12.2007 for Rs. 43,000/- has been produced. The complainant has also produced Tax Invoice dated 06.01.2008 of the opposite party. This receipt is for Rs. 1,23,000/-. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has paid Rs. 80,000/- through cheque dated 07.01.2008 to the opposite party. It is also admitted by them that the complainant who has purchased a recliner for Rs. 43,000/- was exchanged to Lazboy Luxury lift. The opposite party after taking back Grand Canyon chair of Rs. 43,000/- the amount had been deducted and opposite party collected balance amount of Rs. 80,000/- only from the complainant by cheque. Complainant submitted that since his son was suffering from cancer he purchased comfortable chair for his son since he was not been able to sleep on the bed. Complainant’s son was suffering from severe back ache, legs pain and swelling. After purchase of luxury chair the patient did not feel comfortable. The chair was not giving sufficient heat to reduce the pain. The sitting and sleeping position was also not comfortable. Chair caused more pain to the son of the complainant. Soon after purchasing the complainant reported the matter to opposite party on 3 occasions. The opposite party assured that they will rectify the defects by sending technicians to look in to the matter. But it is the case of the complainant that no technician came to the house of the complainant to rectify the complaint and problem was not solved. Therefore, complainant got issued legal notice on 29.01.2008 calling upon the opposite party to take back the chair and pay the amount. The opposite party in its defence version clearly stated that on the special request of the complainant, opposite party agreed to deliver luxury lift recliner chair to the complainant on approval basis. After purchasing chair the son of the complainant has not got any relief. He suffered more discomforts and back pain etc. Therefore, the complainant contacted the opposite party on 3 times. The opposite party assured the complainant that they will rectify the defect by sending their people. But nobody went to the house of the complainant to rectify the defect. Therefore, within 2 – 3 weeks of the purchase of the luxury chair legal notice was issued to the opposite party by the complainant explaining all the facts and problems faced by the complainant and his son. Copy of legal notice dated 29.01.2008 is produced. The complainant has not made any delay to inform the opposite party about the defect and other problems faced in respect of the luxury chair when the chair was given to the complainant on approval basis as submitted by the opposite party in his defence version. In that facts and circumstances of the case the complainant within 22 days of purchase got issued legal notice demanding refund and earlier to that he had contacted the opposite party and informed about the dis-comfort faced on account of use of the chair. Therefore, there is deficiency in service. Luxury chair was not at all helpful to the complainant and his son. The complainant and his son could not get any relief as assured. Therefore, the complainant cannot be asked to bear the burden of purchase of luxury chair. Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation. It is a benevolent legislation intends to protect the better interests of the consumers. The Lazboy luxury lift is not at all useful item to the complainant. He wants that the opposite party should take back the chair and refund amount. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant after taking back the Lazboy luxury lift. The complainant cannot be given full price amount back since his son has made use of the chair for few days and goods once sold cannot be taken back or exchanged is one of the conditions in the Tax Invoice. Irrespective of that condition we have come to conclusion in this case that it will be just, proper and reasonable to direct the opposite party to pay back Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> Order:<br /> 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has to surrender the Lazboy Luxury Lift to the opposite party before getting the refund amount. The opposite party is directed to make refund within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order by the opposite party the amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment/realisation. Parties to bear their own respective costs.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> CV<br />