OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.48/16
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
1) Md.Jamal Uddin - Complainants
S/O Late Hafiz Mia
2) Md.Abbas Uddin
S/O Md.Jamal Uddin
Both are residents of Kailash Nagar
Hatigaon Beltola Sanjog Path,
Guwahati-781038,Kamrup(M),Assam
-vs-
1) Md.Abdul Kalam
Son of unknown - Opp.parties
Proprietor of M/S Modern Furniture
Hatigaoh Bhetapara Road
Near Hatigaoh Police Station
Guwahati-781038
District -Kamrup(M),Assam
Appearance:- Ld.advocate Mr.H.K.Gogoi for the complainant
Date of argument : 28.7.2017
Date of judgment: 16.8.2017
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1) The complaint filed by Md.Jamal Uddin and Md.Abbas Uddin against Md.Abdul Kalam, the proprietor of M/S Modern Furniture, Hatigaon, Bhetapara, Guwahati was admitted on 1.6.16 and notices was sent to him, but he refused to accept the same. Accordingly, this forum, vide our order dtd. 6.12.16, directed that the case against him will proceed exparte. Both the complainants filed their evidence on affidavit. On 28.7.17 Ld.advocate Mr.H.K.Gogoi filed written argument for the complainant and also forwarded his oral argument. We deliver our judgment today which is as below-
2) The brief of the complainant is that Complainant No.1 namely Md.Jamal Uddin and Complainant No.2, Md.Abbas Uddin agreed to purchase two wooden almirahs , one modular kitchen and one wooden box from the opp.party at a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and as per agreement opp.party would make the furniture in their flat and to fix the furniture in the said flat within 15-20 days ; and as per agreement, the complainants paid the opp.party Rs.50,000/- as advance and the opp.party received the advance vide memo No. 51 dtd.8.4.16, and as per agreement the opp.party is to make the furniture as per model of furniture fixed by a neighbour of the complainants and the opp.party agreed to make furniture of similar design, and the opp.party started construction of the said furniture, but while complainants visited the work site, they found that the opp.party made furniture which was totally different from shape, design and structure as agreed; and then complainant requested the opp.party to carry out the work as per agreed model and the opp.party tried to rectify the errors in the structure, but it became more deteriorated and became totally different from the agreed model, and then the complainants again requested the opp.party to remake the furniture as per agreed model, but the opp.party could not make the furniture as desired by them, and then they requested him to stop further work and to terminate the deal and requested him to refund the advance amount paid by them. The complainant approached the opp.party in several occasions and requested him to refund the advance money, but the opp.party refused to refund the advance money.
3) We have perused the evidence of the complainant. In the evidence, C.W.1, Md.Jamal Uddin states that they had entered into an agreement with opp.party, Md.Abdul Kalam, who is a carpenter having business of furniture in the style of M/S Modern Furniture, Hatigaon, Bhetapara Road, for purchasing two wooden almirahs (to be fixed in the wall) , one modular kitchen (to be fixed in the wall) and one wooden box (to be fixed in the wall of the bathroom) in their newly purchased flat, at a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and he also paid Rs.50,000/- to the opp.party as advance and both sides agreed with that opp.party is to make the furniture as per model of furniture of one neighbour of the complainant. After perusing Ex.A, which is a cash-memo given by the opp.party to the complainant, it is found that the complainants paid Rs.50,000/- as advance to the opp.party for making and fixing two wooden almirahs (to be fixed in the wall) , one modular kitchen (to be fixed in the wall) and one wooden box (to be fixed in the wall of the bathroom) in their newly purchased flat at a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and they also paid Rs.50,000/- to the opp.party as advance.
C.W.1 further states that the he inspected the works of the opp.party and he found that the opp.party carried out work of making the furniture in total different shape, design and structure from the model agreed to be made and then he requested the opp.party to carry out the work as per agreed models and opp.party try to rectify the error, but again the structure became more deteriorated and totally different from the agreed models and then he again requested the opp.party to rectify the fault, and the opp.party tried to rectify the fault but failed to make the furniture as desired, and then having no alternative, he requested the opp.party to stop further work and terminate the deal and to return the advance money; but the opp.party refused to return the advance money. The C.W.2 Md. Abbas Uddin also states same thing as that of C.W.1. Thus, it is established that the complainants entered into an agreement on 8.4.2016 with opp.party for purchasing and fixing two wooden almirahs (to be fixed in the wall) , one modular kitchen (to be fixed in the wall) and one wooden box (to be fixed in the wall of the bathroom) in their newly purchased flat at a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and they also paid Rs.50,000/- to the opp.party as advance and as per agreement the opp.party is to make the said furniture as per models of furniture of a neighbouring resident of the complainant, but the opp.party failed to make the furniture as per agreed models, and then the complainants requested the opp.party to rectify the error and the opp.party also tried to remake the furniture, but failed to make the furniture in the desired models, rather it become totally different and deteriorated; and then complainants refused to accept said work and asked the opp.party to refund the advance money and to stop the work, but the opp.party refused to refund the advance money . Thus, it is a clear case of selling defective items by the opp.parties to the complainants and hence it is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party which amount also to deficiency of service towards the complainant. Therefore, the opp.party is liable to return the advance money to the complainants.
4) Closing our discussion as above, we hold that the complaint has merit. Accordingly, the complaint against the opp.party namely, Md.Abdul Kalam, the proprietor of M/S Modern Furniture, Hatigaon, Bhetapara, Guwahati is allowed on exparte, and the opp.party is directed to refund the advance money which is Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainants to him on 8.4.16 while both sides entered into an agreement as to making furniture - two wooden almirahs (to be fixed in the wall) , one modular kitchen (to be fixed in the wall) and one wooden box (to be fixed in the wall of the bathroom) with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of this complaint (27.1.16) and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the complainants as well as Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding. The opp.party is asked to make the payment within 45 days , in default of which , other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hand and seal on this the 16th day of August,2017.
(Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Sahadat Hussain)
Member President
