BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                                     Dated this the 27^th day of October 2011

                                                                                                        Filed on :  30-03-2011

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

          Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                  Member.

          Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No. 181/2011

       Between

Desmond K. Antony,                                :         Complainant

Koramangalath house,                                        (By Adv. Tom Joseph,

Galaxy Wingate Apartments,                             court road, Muvattupuzha)

Flat No. 48, L.F.C road, Kaloor,

Kochi-18.

                                                And  

 1. M/s. Arafa Krafts,                                 :         Opposite parties

    39-40, Chidambaram Nagar,

    Sathy Main road, Saravanampathy,

    Coimbatore-641 035.

2. M/s. T.C. Enterprises,                                (2^nd O.P. deleted)

    Toll Junction, Edapally,

    Kochi-24.

                                          O R D E R

A  Rajesh, President.

          The undisputed  facts of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant placed order for a detachable TV Shelf with the 2^nd opposite party, whom was having a stall in the Vanitha Ice Exhibition conducted at International Stadium, Ernakulam.  The order was placed on 01-02-2011 by paying Rs. 150/-.  The item was delivered on 03-03-2011 by collecting the  balance amount of Rs. 4,800/-.  The item was delivered  at the house of the complainant.  On verifying the item, several damages were seen and the complainant refused to accept the item.  But the representatives of  the opposite party offered to replace the shelf with a defect free one on the next day.  But in spite of repeated contacts, it was not replaced.   As against the good piece shown in the exhibition, the piece supplied is having several defects including torn beadings, broken edges, collapsed front door, scratches etc.  The shelf supplied is looking ugly also.    The TV shelf supplied to the complainant is an interior quality one which suffers from manufacturing defect.  The Act of the opposite party to display good quality shelf and deliver inferior quality shelf amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   The complainant is entitled to  the refund of the price of the TV shelf  along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of  complaint till realization.  He is also entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him, due to the supply of defective T.V. set.

          2. The 1^st opposite party refused to accept the notice issued by this Forum for  reasons of their own.   The 2^nd opposite party was deleted from the party array as per the order of this Forum dated 22-09-2011 on the request of the complainant.   Proof affidavit  has been filed by the complainant.  Ext. A1 was marked on his side.  Heard the counsel for the complainant. 

          3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:

          i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the T.V. stand together with interest from the first opposite party?

            ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,000/- from the 1^st opposite party on account?

          4. Point No. i.   According to the complainant the 2^nd opposite party delivered a T.V. stand in a damaged condition and even on request of the complainant they failed to repair or replace the same. A consumer is entitled to get a defect free product and the opposite party is contractually liable to deliver the same bonafide.     In this case the opposite party failed to do so with no reasons forthcoming for the conspicuous absence.  In the above circumstances we are only to hold  that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the TV stand together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

          5. Point No. ii.  The opposite parties failed to honour the bonafide request of the complainant which is perfectly legal. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts  not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Compensation as prayed for is allowed since the Forum feels it is called for adequately. 

          6.  In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

          i. The first opposite party shall refund the price of the T.V. stand as per Ext. A1 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from

01-02-2011 till realization.  In that event the complainant shall return the defective TV stand to the 1^st opposite party simultaneously to be taken back by the 1^st opposite party at their cost and consequences.

          ii. The first opposite party shall also pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant for the reasons stated above.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of October 2011

                                                                                           Sd/- A Rajesh, President.

                                                                           Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member

                                                                    Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                                                   Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                   Senior Superintendent.

                                                      Appendix

Complainant’s exhibits

                             Ext. A1       :         copy of order form 01-02-2011

Opposite party’s exhibits:      :         Nil