STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Nasib Singh aged about 44 years, son of Shri Phool Singh, resident of H.No.2701-B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh (U.T.).

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1.    GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Through its Managing Director, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079.

2.    GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. through its Manager, SCO No.120-122, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.               The facts, in brief, are that on 23.10.2011, the complainant visited the showroom of Opposite Party No.2, and booked 3 pieces 3 E Urban Sofa without Upholstery, 3 pieces 3 ST Urban Sofa Upholstery Plain (103) Black + Cheque and one Alica Coffee Table, for a sum of Rs.63,066/-. The complainant was intimated, by Opposite Party No.2, that the said articles would be delivered, on order, after getting the booking amount. The complainant was also assured about the delivery of the articles, within three to four weeks from the date of booking. It was stated that the booking amount of Rs.10,000/-, was paid by the complainant. The Opposite Parties, however, failed to deliver the said articles to him, within the period of three to four weeks, as assured by them, though, in the meanwhile, the complainant disposed of his old sofa set. Notice dated 09.03.2012, was served upon Opposite Party No.2, and, on receipt of the same, the aforesaid booked articles were delivered to the complainant, on 26.03.2012.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that the complainant, thus, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission, of the Opposite Parties. When the Opposite Parties, failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, by making payment of compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

3.               The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant booked the articles, mentioned in the complaint. It was denied that the Opposite Parties confirmed the delivery of articles, aforesaid, within a period of three to four weeks, as the said delivery period was for the fast moving and standard products only. It was stated that the sofa set ordered by the complainant was not the standard product and the same was manufactured at Vikhroli, Mumbai, on demand. It was further stated that, after three weeks, the Opposite Parties, informed the complainant, about their problem, in manufacturing the product ordered by him, due to non-availability of the upholstery, selected by him, and requested him to change the upholstery, but, he refused to do so and insisted for supplying the sofa set, as per the order. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, showed their readiness and willingness, to refund the booking amount of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant, but, he was not ready to accept the same, and cancel his order. It was further stated that the delay, in the delivery of non-standard product, was duly intimated to the complainant, well in advance, and the Opposite Parties, delivered the articles, after about four and a half months, which were accepted by the complainant. It was further stated that this fact itself showed that the complainant was in agreement with the terms and conditions of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that, had he not accepted the terms and conditions of the Opposite Parties, for delivery of the articles, after a period of about four and a half months, from the date of booking, he would have certainly accepted the refund of the booking amount, which was offered to him. It was also denied that the Opposite Parties committed any act of omission and commission, resulting into mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant was never assured by the Opposite Parties, that he would be supplied the articles, within three to four weeks.     

6.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, at the time of booking the order, and making payment of the booking amount, the Opposite Parties assured the complainant, that delivery of the articles, shall be made, within three to four weeks. He further submitted that when the articles were not supplied to the complainant, within three to four weeks, notice dated 09.03.2012, was served upon Opposite Party No.2, as a result whereof, the same were delivered to him, on 26.03.2012. He further submitted that, by not delivering the articles, within three to four weeks, as assured by the Opposite Parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.  He further submitted that, this act, on the part of the Opposite Parties, caused  a lot of physical harassment and mental agony, to the complainant, and, therefore, he was required to be compensated for the same, but,  the District Forum was wrong, in dismissing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9.               Undisputedly, the complainant booked the articles, referred to above, for a sum of Rs.63,066/-, on 23.10.2011, as is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of the Order Confirmation Form and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as booking amount. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the articles were delivered to the complainant, after about four and a half months, from the date of booking of the order. The grouse of the complainant, was that, he was assured, at the time of booking the articles, that the same would be delivered to him, within three to four weeks, but, on the other hand, the same were delivered to him, after about four and a half months. No written assurance, was given by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, that delivery of the articles, shall be made to him, within a period of three to four weeks. The bald statement of the complainant, to the effect that he was given an assurance, that the articles would be delivered to him, within three to four weeks of the confirmation of the order, cannot be believed. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, which was duly supported by the affidavit of Gangadharan P.V., their Manager-Legal and Administration, in clear-cut terms stated that the order, which was booked by the complainant, was not, in respect of their fast moving and standard products. They further, in clear-cut terms, stated in their written version, duly supported by the affidavit of Gangadharan P.V., their Manager-Legal and Administration, that the sofa set ordered by the complainant, being not their fast moving and standard product, was manufactured at their manufacturing plant, at Vikhroli, Mumbai, on demand. Since, upholstery, which was selected by the complainant, was not available, the Opposite Parties, showed their bonafides, by intimating the complainant, that he could select other upholstery, for the sofa or get refund of the booking amount, but he was not ready, to accept the booking amount. On the other hand, he only wanted the sofa, which was booked by him. The factum, that there was no delay, in the delivery of the booked articles, is further fortified, from the circumstance, that when the delivery of the articles was made to the complainant, on 26.03.2012,  he accepted the same, without raising any protest. He did not record any protest, on the invoice. In case, the delivery of the articles was not acceptable to him, after about four and a half months, he could raise such a protest or, if he failed to do so, at the time of delivery of the same, he could, immediately, thereafter, write a letter to the Opposite Parties, that since the articles had not been delivered to him, within three to four weeks, they were deficient, in rendering service, and, as such, he was entitled to compensation. The complainant, however, slept over the matter. He filed the complaint on 19.07.2012, i.e. about four months, after the delivery of articles, to him. This fact, in itself, was sufficient to prove that the version, set up by the complainant, that he was assured delivery of the articles, within three to four weeks, was wholly and completely false. The District Forum was right, in holding that since the complainant failed to prove, through cogent and convincing evidence, that he was assured that the delivery of articles, shall be made to him, within three to four weeks, from the date of booking of the order, neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on their (Opposite Parties) part, nor the question of causing any mental agony and physical harassment, to him (complainant) arose. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.   

10.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

11.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

10.12.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg