DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.320 of 07-11-2017

Decided on 18-07-2018

Tejinder Singh S/o S.Dalip Singh R/o 102, Urban Estate Phase-3, Bathinda, Pb.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/S Bombay Furnishers, Kikar Bazaar, Bathinda, through its Owner/Partner Sh.Abhay Jain.

2.Sh.Aparum Jain, Owner/Partner/Manager, M/S Bombay Furnishers, Kikar Bazaar, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.N.P Singh, Advocate.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Harraj Singh, Advocate.

Opposite party No.2: Deleted.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Tejinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/S. Bombay Furnishers and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one seven seater sofa set for Rs.34,000/- vide bill dated 25.5.2014 from opposite parties on 25.5.2014. At that time, opposite parties assured the complainant that best quality material has been used. The life of sofa is expected about 20 years. However they gave guarantee of 10 years on sofa in all respect. Believing this assurance and allurement by opposite parties, the complainant agreed to purchase seven seater sofa.

3. It is alleged that the complainant noticed that slowly the seats and backs of sofa set in three pieces started bulging down at several places. Later on, defects developed in such a condition that it was not to be fit to normal use. He contacted opposite party No.1 on 21.10.2017 and told it that the sofa supplied by it has gone unfit for normal use. Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant to send his representative to check the problem on 23.10.2017 and if need be, the sofa shall be replaced with new one, but none of the representative came to check the sofa. He again talked to opposite party No.1 and requested it to look into the problem. Opposite party No.1 again assured to send his man for checking, but to no result. The complainant again contacted opposite parties, but to no response.

   On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has also prayed for directions to opposite parties either to refund an amount of Rs.34,000/- with interest or replace the sofa with new one. He has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

4. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

5. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary submissions that it sold the sofa set for Rs.34,000/- to the complainant on 25.5.2014. It is admitted that opposite party No.1 assured the complainant about the best quality and workmanship of the sofa set. The complainant purchased the sofa set after due inspection. It is admitted that after lapse of 4 years on 21.10.2017, the complainant approached the shop of opposite party No.1 and alleged that the quality of material and workmanship of the sofa set are substandard. The complainant insisted for new sofa set or otherwise to return him entire amount of Rs.34,000/-. Opposite party No.1 satisfied the complainant that neither the material nor workmanship employed in making of the sofa set is subpar. As such, opposite party No.1 humbly informed the complainant that it is not possible for it either to replace the sofa with new one or return the entire amount of Rs.34,000/-. It was also informed that the sofa set is subject to natural wear and tear due to passage of time and complainant was asked to get his sofa repaired at his cost, but he was adamant on his demand for replacement or return of full amount. Opposite party No.1 has also pleaded that it is ready and willing to repair the sofa at the cost of the complainant.

6. On merits, opposite party No.1 has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary submissions and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. Parties were asked to produce evidence.

8. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 7.11.2017 and 6.2.2018, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill-cum-receipt, (Ex.C2); photographs, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5) and submitted written arguments.

9. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhey Jain dated 22.5.2018, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant.

11. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

12. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

13. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased sofa set for Rs.34,000/- from opposite party No.1 on 25.5.2014. He has also pleaded that opposite party No.1 gave guarantee of 10 years. This fact is also mentioned in the bill, (Ex.C2). Moreover this fact is also not denied by opposite party No.1. The complainant has pleaded that some defects developed in the sofa set and he lodged the complaint. Opposite party No.1 has also not denied this fact.

    The version of opposite party No.1 is that this defect is due to some wear and tear. Of-course, this can also be reason of the defects, but opposite party No.1 has given blind guarantee and without any exclusion. In these circumstances, opposite party No.1 cannot escape from its liability.

14. Now, question is regarding relief. Of-course, the complainant has claimed for refund of price or replacement of sofa set, but this relief can be only granted, if there is any manufacturing defect. There is no evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. The photographs, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5) produced by the complainant himself reveal that some seats have compressed. Opposite party No.1 has also expressed its readiness and willingness to repair the sofa set, but at the cost of the complainant. When opposite party No.1 has already given guarantee of 10 years, opposite party No.1 cannot claim cost of repair and it is under obligation to repair the sofa set without any charges.

15. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the sofa set and remove the defects in it without any charges

16. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    18-07-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member