Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/300/2022

Prem Shanker Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Rajiv Arora, M/s Harmilp Furniture House - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/300/2022
Date of Institution	:	14/03/2022
Date of Decision	:	12/04/2023

 

Prem Shanker Agrawal, Age 70 years, Senior Citizen, S/o Late Sh.D.P. Agarwal, R/o H.No.553, Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh-160047.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Mr. Rajiv Arora, M/s Harmilap Furniture House, Shop No.253-258-269, Sector 34, Chandigarh-160022.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Yoginder Nagpal, Counsel for OP(s).

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had booked a dining table alongwith six chairs of teak wood for a sum of Rs.22,500/- from OP on 22.03.2017 (Annexure A-1). Accordingly, Rs.2,000/- was given as advance to the OP by the complainant which was also written by the OP at the back side of the visiting card. On the assurance of OP, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.20,500/- to the delivery person present on the shop but no bill was given at the time of delivery, because the OP was not present at the shop. It is noticed by the complainant and also pointed by some relative that the supplier did not use the teak wood in manufacturing of dining table. The OP has used the cheap wood or solid board in manufacturing of dining table and teak ply is pasted by the supplier (OP) so nicely on the surface of the wood/board and applied the polish so nicely to give look of teak wood shade which was also highlighted by the complainant at the time of delivery of the dining table which mislead the complainant. The pasted ply started leaving the surface of cheap wood/solid board used for manufacturing the dining table and giving bad look. The complainant had met personally with the OP at the shop and explained about the quality of dining table and chairs and requested the OP to either replace the existing dining table set with the teak wood dining set and chairs or refund the amount as paid by the complainant. But OP behaved in rude manner and did not pay any heed towards the complainant. After that the complainant served a legal notice to the OP but no reply was received. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complaint is ultra vires and hopelessly time barred. As complainant himself stated dining table was bought on 22.03.2017, and date offiling of complaint is 28.03.2022, after a gap of more than five years. It is also stated that the irrelevant contentions which were never assured as standard practice is 2 inch and not 40 density foam cushion (gaddi) which was never promised to complainant as 40 density is for sofa seat not for dining chair seat, had it been the case complainant would have annexed it. It is further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant had annexed some vague writing of some unscrupulous carpenter (Annexure P-2) and no report of carpenter who had made the furniture was ever obtained hence present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OP did not supply teak wood dining table/chairs, as per his commitment inspite of paying full money of Rs.22,500/- to it. To substantiate his claim, the complainant attached a report of experienced carpenter vide Annexure A-2, intimating that the dining table is not made up of teak wood. The complainant has also alleged that the OP did not issue the receipt towards purchase, inspite of his repeated visits to the shop of OP.
7.     On perusal of para 3 of reply, the OP has admitted that complainant intentionally had not obtained invoice just to escape tax liability, which means that the said product was purchased from it. By not issuing the bill, the OP has indulged in the unfair trade practice. It is also observed that the OP has misrepresented about the product to be of certain quality and certain specifications as promised. Hence, the OP is also deficient in providing service to the complainant.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹13,500/- (Rs.22,500 - 40% towards depreciation for the usage of product) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization and the complainant shall return the product to the OP, who shall collect it from the residence of the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹4,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
12/04/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member