BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 28th day of August, 2007
C.C. No.17/2007
L. Raja Sekhar Goud, S/o Seshanna Goud, Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College,
Resident of plot No.108, Vishnu Apartments, Birla Compound,
Kurnool - 2.
… COMPLAINANT
Verses
Mr. Surendranath Reddy, Sri Balaji Furniture,
Woodlands, Main Road, Budhawarpet, Kurnool - 518 002.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Thiss complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, and Sri.P. Siva Sudarshan Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and upon persuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.17/2007.
1. This case of the Complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the Opposite Party for replacement of sofa set or refund Rs.13,500/- the cost of sofa set, for payment of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs along with other reliefs which the circumstances of the case demand, alleging the purchase of an “U” model sofa set, consisting of three pieces, from the Opposite Party for Rs.13,500/- on 19.2.2005 under a warranty for three years on the cover and cushions of the said sofa set but within a month after to purchase the damage occurred to the cover of the sofa set due to poor quality in cushion and cover cloth material and on being taken to the notice the Opposite Party getting verified the damage by its carpenter and there after dodging on the request of the Complainant for replacement, to the mental agony of Complainant inspite of the Complainant’s several approaches and handing over the purchase bill as required by the Opposite Party and the said conduct of the Opposite Party is amounting to deficiency on its part towards the Complainant .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the Complainant the Opposite Party has caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing its denial written version denying of its liability to the Complainant’s claim alleging the purchase of sofa set by the Complainant’s wife and of any assurances at the time of purchase and on noticing at the instance of the Complainant a slight damage to the cover of the sofa set which was occasioned due to negligent use of said sofa set by the Complainant promising to get replacement of the cover cloth at free of cost of stitching provided the cost of the cloth material was born by the Complainant and the Complainant agreeing for it but not turning up there after except causing a legal notice on 24.3.2007 which was suitably replied and as damage if any was not to the sofa set but only to its cover cloth material, the replacement of sofa set with a new one doesn’t arise and hence for want of any justifiable cause of action to the Complainant for filing this case, seeks its dismissal with costs.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the Complainant’s side has taken the reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of Complainant’s case, the Opposite Party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 & B2 besides to the sworn affidavit of the Opposite Party and the evidence of RW.1 (P. Siva Kumar).
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether the Complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party for which the latter is liable to the claim of the Complainant.
5. The Ex.A4 is Xerox copy of purchase bill dated 19.2.2005. It was filed by the Complainant alleging the delivery of its original receipt to the Opposite Party at the latter’s request. The Ex.A4 envisages sale of an “U” model sofa set in consisting of three pieces in Balaji Furnitures for Rs.13,500/- on 19.2.2005. The alleged purchase of sofa set by the Complainant’s wife being not substantiated by the Opposite Party with any cogent material such as a receipt on her name or any such mention has been taken by the Opposite Party in his Ex.B1 reply notice and on the other hand its contents denotes the Complainant status as purchaser and the Ex.A4 being not containing the name of the Complainant’s wife there appears any much difficulty in accepting the Ex.A4 as the bill under which the Complainant purchased the said sofa set.
6. While the Complaint alleges a warranty of three years for cover and cushion of said sofa set was given by the Opposite Party at the time of its sale, any such warranty is filed to substantiate the same in meeting the Opposite Party’s denial of said avernment.
7. While the complaint alleges the damage to the cover and cushion of said sofa set with in a month of its purchase, the Ex.A1 legal notice dated 14.3.2006 caused to the Opposite Party alleges the damage after three months to its purchase and the written version and the Ex.B1 reply notice dated 24.3.2006 of the Opposite Party alleges the said complaint was brought to its notice after one year to said purchase and the evidence of RW.1 - P. Siva Kumar – who was sent by Opposite Party for verification of level of alleged damage to the sofa set also brings said to one year after to purchase . Hence there appears every doubt as to alleged damage to the cover and cushion of sofa set within a month after to the purchase of sofa set.
8. While the Complainant alleges extensive damages to the cover and cushion of the sofa set taking the attention of this Forum to Ex.A2 photographs attributing it to their substandard quality, the evidence of RW.1 – P.Siva Kumar – who was sent by the opposite party for verification of the level of damage to the sofa set of the Complainant observes not any extensive damages but only a little extent of 1.5 or 2 inches to the left corner of the cover print of sofa set and attributes such occasion to the negligent use such as fall of milk or cool drink on said cover cloth and submits further that he learnt from the inmates of the Complainant’s house that the said defect was noticed subsequent to the recent visit of relatives who used said sofa set and the quality of said cover cloth good. As to the extensive damages noticed in Ex.A2 is concerned the Complainant except filing those photographs did not examine the photographer who has snapped them and to come across the otherwise circumstances arising in evidence of RW.1. Hence there appears every doubt as to the alleged extensive damages to the cover of the Complainant’s sofa set is concerned. But however as the evidence of Rw.1 says the said damage noticed warrants the total change of cover cloth for want of availability of the same kind of cover cloth the extensiveness or otherwiseness of the damage remains with little relevancy and consequence.
9. As the defect being in the quality of cover cloth and not of the sofa set the Complainant is remaining entitled to the relief of replacement of said damaged so far with new covers which as per the estimation of Rw.1 costs Rs.3,000/-.Even though the insistence of the Complainant for new sofa set as appears from the Ex.A3 notice and complaint pleadings and it is unjust in the circumstances of the case but as there was any preparedness in Ex.B1 reply notice or written version pleadings to attend said replacement of cloth cover even to the sofa set of Complainant without any conditions there appears circumstances not only believe the mental agony to the Complainant at indifferent conduct of the Opposite Party but also an inevitability to the Complainant to file this case for redressal. Therefore the Opposite Party is liable to pay to the Complainant Rs.1,000/- each as compensation for mental agony and as cost of the case respectively.
10. Even though the written version alleges that the wife of the Complainant purchased the sofa set from the Opposite Party but either the Ex.A4 envisages said fact or any cogent material placed by the Opposite Party to believe the fact in said contention especially said fact was not avered in Ex.B1 reply notice the Opposite Party can’t escape the liability to the Complainant arising out of the defect in covering cloth of the purchased sofa set.
11. Consequently, the case of the Complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to replace the cloth cover of the sofa set with good quality of cover cloth material or to pay Rs.3,000/- for meeting for probable cost of the total change of cover cloth to the sofa set. The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.1,000/- each towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainant at the indifferent conduct of the Opposite Party, and towards costs of the case respectively. The Opposite Party shall comply the supra stated award with in a month of the receipt of this order. In default the Opposite Party is to pay the supra stated award with 9% interest per annum from date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by her open bench on this the 29th day of August, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :
RW.1.Deposition of RW.1 dated
4.6.2007 (P.Siva Kumar)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Office copy of legal notice, dated
14.3.2006.
Ex.A2. A Bunch (4) four photographs with corresponding
Negatives as to damages to the sofa.
Ex.A3. Letter, dated 23.3.2005 of complainant addressed
To the opposite party.
Ex.A4 . Attestd Xerox copy of purchase bill dated 19.2.2005
For Rs.13,500/-
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties;
Ex. B1. Office copy of legal notice, dated 24.3.2006.
Ex. B2. Served complaint copy in this case.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
