BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 28^th day of December 2021

                             Filed on: 20/09/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                        Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                               Member

CC.No.404/2018

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER

Thomas Paul, S/o.Thomas, Arambankudiyil House, Keerambara, Tattekadu.P.O, Kothamangalam – 686 691, Ernakulam District.                             (Rep. by Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Uwaiz, Proprietor, M/s.Grand Furniture Mart, AM Road, Nellikuzhi.P.O, Kothamangalam  – 686 661, Ernakulam District. 
 

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member 

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

       The complainant states that he had purchased good quality chairs suitable for a dining table so as to give it to his daughter for her newly built house.  The opposite party at the time of purchase showed the complainant a good-quality chair.  Therefore, the complainant had booked six teak chairs and paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 31.07.2017.  After the purchase of the chairs, the complainant states that he had noticed various defects on the chairs supplied by the opposite party.  The complainant over phone informed the opposite party about the defect of the chairs supplied.  The opposite party promised that the defective chairs supplied by him will be replaced with good quality chairs and asked the complainant to use them temporarily till the opposite party delivering the new good quality chairs.  Even though the opposite party promised the complainant to replace the defective chairs with good quality chairs the opposite party had not delivered his promise and the complainant had sent a lawyer notice which has served on the opposite party.  The complainant states that the opposite party had not replaced the chairs as promised till the date of the complaint.  The complainant alleges that the non-replacement of the defective chairs with good quality chairs supplied by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.  The complainant also alleges that he had severe mental agony and hardship due to the non-compliance attitude on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant had asked for refund of an amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by him along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and he had asked compensation for Rs.30,000/- from the opposite party.  Notice was issued by the Commission to the opposite party but the opposite party had not appeared and filed version or contest the case.  Therefore, the opposite party is made ex-parte in this case.

In the absence of the opposite party, we have perused the documents filed by the complainant along with the proof affidavit and other available records produced by the complainant before the Commission.  The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to Exbt.A3 and also preferred a proof affidavit from his side which is marked and the evidence is closed.

        On perusal of the documents Exbt.A1 to Exbt.A3 it is seen that Exbt.A1 is a bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.8,400/- vide No.897 dated 31/07/2017.  Exbt.A2 is the address proof of the opposite party and photo of the damaged furniture. Exbt.A3 is a copy of the lawyer notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party.  The complainant had also produced photographs of the chairs and the material of the chair by which it is made.     

The main points to be analyzed in this case to reach into an inference as to whether the complainant had sustained deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party is as follows: -

(i)     Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice 

        sustained to the complainant from the opposite parties?

(ii)    If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from

the opposite parties?

(iii)    Cost of the proceedings?

Point No:1

        A very thorough analysis by going into the documents and other records reveals that the complainant had purchased six numbers of chairs from the opposite party on 31/07/2017 against which the opposite party had issued a bill bearing No.897.  The complainant alleges that he had paid Rs.15,000/- on 31/07/2017 for the purchase of six chairs.  The complainant had not produced any documents to prove that he had paid Rs.15,000/- to the opposite party on 31/07/2017.  From the bill which is marked as Exbt.A1 it can be seen that the cost of six chairs @2,500/- each is Rs.15,000/- and a discount of Rs.600/- is noted in the bill showing a balance of Rs.14,400/- is to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party against which only an advance amount of Rs.6,000/- is seen paid by the complainant and a balance of Rs.8,400/- is shown against the total of the bill(which is not actually the total of the bill) and therefore an amount of Rs.8,400/- only is seen paid by the complainant to the opposite party.  Further on perusal of the photos of the damaged chairs produced by the complainant and in the absence of any contra evidence or other proof from the side of the supplier there is nothing to disbelieve that the article supplied by the opposite party to the complainant is of inferior quality.  The Commission feels it absolutely unnecessary to appoint and get the report of an expert to substantiate the authenticity of the argument of the complainant that he had been provided inferior quality of articles by the opposite party in the absence of any contra evidence and the Commission is properly satisfied with the evidences in deriving into the conclusion that the materials being used by the opposite party for manufacturing the chairs are of inferior quality.  Hence the complainant had afforded deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party and the supply of defective product to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice.  In these circumstances, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant is proved beyond doubt and hence point no.1 is proved in favour of the complainant.  Since point no.1 is proved in favour of the complainant point no.2 and no.3 are assessed and evaluated accordingly.

1)    We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant which is the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party being the cost of article purchased by the complainant along with 9% interest from 31/07/2017 till the date of payment.

2)    We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.

3)    An amount of Rs.5,000/- is to be paid as a cost of proceedings to the complainant by the opposite party.

             The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Pronounced in the Commission on this the 28^th day of December 2021.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                      V.Ramachandran, Member 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                               D.B.Binu, President 

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                              Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

s/                     

                                                                            Forwarded/by Order

                                                                         Senior Superintendent

Despatch date: 

By hand:         

by post:

                                                        APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:        

Deposition:

 NIL