Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.08.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to return the price of sofa set and single beds which were sold by the opposite party i.e. Rs. 40,500/-.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,000/- ( Rs. One Thousand only ) per day from first week of April 2011 as compensation.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
the complainant has asserted that he had purchased two single beds and one sofa set (set of 3) from opposite party namely “Carpenter” in the first week of February after paying Rs. 40,500/-. It is further case of the complainant that earlier he paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance and later on he has paid Rs. 35,500/- to the opposite party. Opposite party had granted Kachcha receipt of Rs. 5,000/- and later on a receipt issued by one Taaz was given to him by opposite party. The complainant protested that he had purchased the aforesaid items from opposite party after paying cash to him but the final receipt is being issued by one Taaz. Thereafter the opposite party has stated that according to record the shop is being run in the name of Taaz and hence there will be no problem to the complainant in future ( Vide annexure – II).
It is the case of the complainant that after purchasing the bed and sofa cracks developed in several parts of the aforesaid articles and thereafter the complainant complained this fact to opposite party. The opposite party replied that problem will be solved. The staff of opposite party inspected the cracks in the aforesaid furnitures and returned after assuring the complainant that he will report to Md. Nafis.
It is further case of the complainant that despite his best effort, the opposite party neither changed the furniture nor repaired the same and as such legal notice was given to opposite party as will appear from annexure – 3 and 3/1 but the said notices were returned by opposite party. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice on 06.09.2011 but the same was returned with the report of post office that staff of shop of opposite party said that opposite party is out of Patna and he does not know when the opposite party will return to Patna and as such the staff refused to take the notice.
The complainant has asserted that the furniture supplied by opposite party are defective and result of poor manufacturing due to which the complainant has suffered much.
It appears from the judicial record that when the Tamila of notice on opposite party returned unserved then Dasti notice was sent to him and from order sheet dated 15.07.2014 it appears that the aforesaid Dasti notice was refused by opposite party and as such the same returned unserved and thereafter vide order dated 07.08.2015 the Tamila was declared valid and opposite party was directed to file written statement but he failed to do so and as such this case was heard ex - parte.
It is needless to say that the aforesaid facts asserted by complainant in complaint petition definitely discloses deficiency on the part of opposite party because the furniture supplied by the opposite party after receiving payment of Rs. 40,500/- the same developed cracks due to poor manufacturing. It has been also asserted that the aforesaid furniture are not being used due to several cracks.
As there is no counter version of the opposite party hence we have no option but to rely on the fact asserted by the complainant in his complaint petition.
Accordingly We direct the opposite party to return the price of aforesaid articles i.e. Rs. 40,500/- ( Rs. Forty Thousand Five Hundred only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite party will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant as composite charge for compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member PresidentPresent (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.08.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to return the price of sofa set and single beds which were sold by the opposite party i.e. Rs. 40,500/-.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,000/- ( Rs. One Thousand only ) per day from first week of April 2011 as compensation.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
the complainant has asserted that he had purchased two single beds and one sofa set (set of 3) from opposite party namely “Carpenter” in the first week of February after paying Rs. 40,500/-. It is further case of the complainant that earlier he paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance and later on he has paid Rs. 35,500/- to the opposite party. Opposite party had granted Kachcha receipt of Rs. 5,000/- and later on a receipt issued by one Taaz was given to him by opposite party. The complainant protested that he had purchased the aforesaid items from opposite party after paying cash to him but the final receipt is being issued by one Taaz. Thereafter the opposite party has stated that according to record the shop is being run in the name of Taaz and hence there will be no problem to the complainant in future ( Vide annexure – II).
It is the case of the complainant that after purchasing the bed and sofa cracks developed in several parts of the aforesaid articles and thereafter the complainant complained this fact to opposite party. The opposite party replied that problem will be solved. The staff of opposite party inspected the cracks in the aforesaid furnitures and returned after assuring the complainant that he will report to Md. Nafis.
It is further case of the complainant that despite his best effort, the opposite party neither changed the furniture nor repaired the same and as such legal notice was given to opposite party as will appear from annexure – 3 and 3/1 but the said notices were returned by opposite party. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice on 06.09.2011 but the same was returned with the report of post office that staff of shop of opposite party said that opposite party is out of Patna and he does not know when the opposite party will return to Patna and as such the staff refused to take the notice.
The complainant has asserted that the furniture supplied by opposite party are defective and result of poor manufacturing due to which the complainant has suffered much.
It appears from the judicial record that when the Tamila of notice on opposite party returned unserved then Dasti notice was sent to him and from order sheet dated 15.07.2014 it appears that the aforesaid Dasti notice was refused by opposite party and as such the same returned unserved and thereafter vide order dated 07.08.2015 the Tamila was declared valid and opposite party was directed to file written statement but he failed to do so and as such this case was heard ex - parte.
It is needless to say that the aforesaid facts asserted by complainant in complaint petition definitely discloses deficiency on the part of opposite party because the furniture supplied by the opposite party after receiving payment of Rs. 40,500/- the same developed cracks due to poor manufacturing. It has been also asserted that the aforesaid furniture are not being used due to several cracks.
As there is no counter version of the opposite party hence we have no option but to rely on the fact asserted by the complainant in his complaint petition.
Accordingly We direct the opposite party to return the price of aforesaid articles i.e. Rs. 40,500/- ( Rs. Forty Thousand Five Hundred only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite party will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant as composite charge for compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
