BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 450 of 2010 Date of Institution : 20.07.2010 Date of Decision : 16.05.2011 S.D.Sharma s/o Late Sh.Charan Dass, Resident of House No.1136, Sector 15, Panchkula. ….…Complainant V E R S U S M/s ATUL Furniture, Furnishers & Decorators, 8, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Proprietors. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.D.P.Chhanchhia, Adv. for the complainant. Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OP PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.S.D.Sharma against M/s ATUL Furniture under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended up to date. Factually speaking, the complainant had purchased a Sofa Set for his personal use from the OP. The price was fixed at Rs.40,000/-, but Rs.10,000/- only was paid as advance. The Sofa Set was to be delivered within 30 days. When the Sofa Set was delivered at the residence of the complainant, the balance payment of Rs.30,000/- was made to the OP. The complainant has alleged that the OP did not issue any bill for the balance payment. The day after delivery, the complainant and his family members were surprised to see that the leg of the Sofa Set was broken. Despite making complaint to the OP, the OP, as per complainant, did not come to repair the Sofa Set for about 15 days. When the Sofa Set was finally repaired, it had, by then, started giving a creaking noise. The complainant therefore asked the OP to replace the Sofa Set but the OP did not comply with the request. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with a prayer to direct the OP to replace the Sofa Set or refund the amount paid along with compensation. 2] After admission, notice was sent to the OP. The OP in their reply has stated that there is no defect in the Sofa Set and the complainant has only filed the complaint because he is not happy with the colour of the Sofa Set. Admitting that the cost of the Sofa Set was Rs.40,000/- with a special discount of Rs.10,000/-, due to Diwali festival period, the OP has submitted that the complainant paid only Rs.30,000/- for the Sofa. The OP also made a bill of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant along with taxes, which the complainant has not mentioned. When he was asked to pay the tax of Rs.3750/-, he said that he did not have the required amount and he would pay it the next day and also collect the bill. Thereafter, the complainant never came to collect the bill or make the payment of tax amount. Hence, as per OP, Rs.3750/- towards tax on the bill amount is still payable by the complainant. Reiterating that there is no defect in the Sofa Set except that its colour is not to the liking of the complainant, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contention. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record along with written arguments of complainant. 5] Neither party has been able to produce the copy of the cash memo. In fact there is no proof even of the sale or the actual value of the item sold. The OP have denied the price of Sofa Set to be Rs.40,000/- as stated by the complainant, which according to them is Rs.30,000/- but they too have not produced any evidence on record to show the actual price of the sofa set. 6] During the course of proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the OP had agreed to replace the Sofa Set with a new one without any cost or compensation and the complainant had accepted the offer on 16.3.2011. But despite two hearings, the complainant did not accept new Sofa Set against the old one from the OP. In fact at the time of arguments, the complainant submitted that the OP had made the sofa but he did not wish to pick it up. He only wanted a refund. In our opinion, when the OP have made the sofa there is no cause for us to order for refund especially when the complainant has not pointed out any defect in the new Sofa. The price is also ambiguous between the parties, each one states a different amount. Refund is not possible. It would be unfair to the OP. 7] In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dismiss this complaint. The complainant may take the newly made Sofa from the OP, if he so desires, within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP will not be liable to handover the Sofa to him. No order as to costs. 8] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 16.05.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
(MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
