BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD

F.A.No.1209/2009  against C.C.No.488/2009, Dist.Forum-III,Hyderabad.             

Between:

Mrs. Zeena Giri,

Flat No.302,

Shanti Vihar Apts.,

Czech Colony, Sanath Nagar,

Hyderabad-18.                                                    … Appellant/

                                                                           Complainant

     And

Modern Life Style Interior and Furniture

36-3-852/4/A, New Lalbangalow, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad -16.                                                   … Respondent/

                                                                            Opp.party     

Counsel for the Appellant        :    Party in person

Counsel for the Respondent   :     Present in person

   CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

                             SRI K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.

                   MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND  DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per  Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                                ****

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.488/2009 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a dining table with a glass top from the opposite party on 12.7.2008  paying an amount of Rs.17,000/- and this table was delivered to them on the same day.  She submits that she was verbally informed that the product had one year guarantee                                                               and on 12.4.2009   i.e.  exactly 9 months after purchase there was an explosion and the dining table burst into small pieces. The complainant  along with her family members  was sitting  in the living room when there was a loud explosion and the pieces of glass flew past   them  and her younger son  received  a slight injury  and  it took nearly 30 minutes for the glass to stop bursting. There was expensive glassware and crockery on the dining table worth more than Rs.3000/- and all of them broke due to explosion.  When the complainant informed the same to Modern Life Style i.e. opposite party herein they said that they would send someone at the earliest but nobody had bothered to visit her home and she submits that it is only because of inferior material that they had used,  that this explosion had happened  and if the opposite party warned her about the product she would have purchased the wooden dining table and not spent an amount of Rs.17,000/-.  Hence the  complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.17,000/- together with damages of Rs.3,000/-  and other compensation and costs. 

The opposite party filed  counter stating that the complainant had no privity of  contract with them since her claim is not supported by any   valid  invoice or warranty card issued by them and that they never sold any dining  table  or glass to the complainant and that any furniture or crockery made of glass does not carry  any warranty and that they are in the furniture business  for several years and the glass does not carry  warranty from the manufacturers and that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.

         The District Forum  based on the  evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 dismissed  the complaint on the ground that in the absence of any expert opinion to substantiate the real reason for breakage  it cannot be concluded that the breakage occurred due to any manufacturing defect. 

Both parties present in person . Heard. 

We have perused the material on record.  It is the complainant’s case that she purchased a glass top dining table paying an amount of Rs.17,000/- on 12.7.2008   and she relies on  Ex.A8  which is  an estimate no.450   issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.17,000/-.  The complainant submits that the entire amount was paid in cash and that when she insisted for a  bill, the opposite party had only given her  the said  estimate.  Opposite party present  in person submitted that  they have issued estimate when she had requested  to know the price of the dining table but they have not sold the dining table to her nor have  they collected the amount towards purchase of the dining table.   The complainant  filed third  party affidavit who stated that they were present when the transaction took place and that an amount of Rs.17,000/- was paid in cash.   The opposite party did not take any steps to led any further evidence to state  that this dining table was not purchased  in their shop. They did not take any steps to examine  third party who filed an affidavit.  The complainant also filed literature   about spontaneous  glass breakage  and also photographs of  the  dining table which shows that the entire top  had broken into pieces.  This is evidenced under Ex.A1.   Ex.A2 is  the copy of the telephone bill which evidences  that she  had made phone calls  to opposite party  and it is the complainant’s  case that these phone calls were made subsequent  to the explosion in her house and both these calls are dt.18.4.2009 and 20.4.2009, while it is her case that the dining table had exploded on 12.4.2009.  Ex.A6 is the  letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party  dt.25.4.2009  calling upon them to refund her money.   Though the opposite party described  the bill as an estimate, it is  dubious way of describing an invoice and in general commercial transactions no such estimate would be given in place of an invoice and it is also not stated  under what authority such an estimate could be issued and it is also observed from the record that the complainant did not give any requisition to issue such an estimate.  Having issued a bill, though dubiously  called an ‘estimate’ it is incumbent upon the  trader to prove that no such transaction taken place.   Though the opposite  party in person does not deny issuance of the estimate but denies that the transaction  took place,  we are of the considered view that the material on record evidences that the opposite party had  sold the dining table  to the complainant and did not chose either to reply to her letter or to her phone calls and even before this Commission did not  give any substantial reasons for the issuance of an estimate  and not a bill to a private party.  Keeping  in view the facts and circumstances and the material on record we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party in not attending to the problem of the complainant for which act they are liable to refund an amount of Rs.15,000/- since the complainant had used the dining table for a period of 9 months.  We also award compensation of Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.2000/-.

        In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to take back the defective dining table and refund an amount of Rs.15,000/- together with compensation of Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        Dt.22.2.2010

Pm*