Date of Filing      : 10.12.2018
                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 15.05.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                  .…. PRESIDENT
                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                      .....MEMBER –I
                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                    ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.58/2018
THIS MONDAY, THE 15th DAY OF MAY 2023

Mr.S.Parthasarathy,
S/o.M.Shanmugam,
No.13, V.V.Colony 2nd Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai 88.                                                          .........Complainant.
                                                                          //Vs//
1.M/s.Hari Traders,
   Rep. by its Manager,
   No.66/68, Alapakkam Main Road,
   Maduravoyal,
   Chennai 600 095.

2.Hari,
   M/s.Hari Traders,
   No.66/68, Alapakkam Main Road,
   Maduravoyal,
   Chennai 600 095.                                               ...Opposite parties.
 
Counsel for the complainant                          :  M/s.M.Murugan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties                    : Mr.R.S.Bharanivel Raaj, Advocate.
                        
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.04.2023 in the presence of M/s.M.Murugan counsel for the complainant and Mr.R.S.Bharanivel Raaj counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER - I

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in selling furniture along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the furniture or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- being the cost of furniture to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

The case of the complainant is that he had visited the stall of the Opposite Party in the furniture expo held at Chennai Trade Centre on 31.12.2016. Based on the false representation of the Opposite Party, the complainant had purchased teak wood item i.e. wooden cot with 1 box,  Spring white bed,  GPL 3+1+1 seater soba set, Dressing Table, Dining Table with 4 chairs and Wooden and glass teapoy by paying Rs.1,25,000/- on 31.12.2016 vide purchase order No.878. The Opposite Party delivered the goods on 15.01.2017 and the furniture delivered by them were inferior quality, used and damaged furniture. Hence the Complainant informed the same to the opposite Parties over phone and they assured to send its representative to the complainant’s house to inspect the furniture.  Thereafter the Opposite Parties never turned up for inspection. Hence the Complainant personally visited the shop of the Opposite Parties and demanded replacement of the used furniture with new one. The Opposite Party never adhered the request of the complainant and hence the complainant sent letters dated 29.03.2017, 10.06.2017 and 09.04.2018 to replace the damaged furniture but there was no reply from them. The action of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The Complainant issued a legal notice dated 20.10.2018 and the same was received by Opposite Parties on 10.11.2018 but they had not complied the demands in the said notice but issued a reply notice dated 20.11.2018 with false allegations. Hence the complaint
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
The Opposite Parties have been running business of selling wooden furniture from the year 2003. They had not persuaded the complainant to purchase the furniture’s. There were lot of stalls in the expo. The complainant himself came to the stall and placed the orders. The complainant voluntarily placed the orders after verifying thoroughly. No one from opposite Party influenced the complainant to purchase the furniture. The Opposite Parties delivered the goods with good condition as ordered by the complainant. The Opposite Party had not delivered the used or damaged furniture’s. The Opposite Parties had not received any letters from the complainant as alleged by him. After purchasing, the complainant utilised the same for one and half years. The Complainant had not filed a single document to show that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties suitably replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 on their side.  on the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and submitted document marked as Ex.B1 on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling furniture to the complainant and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased teak wood furniture items from the Opposite Parties on 31.12.2016 vide purchase order No.878. However, the furniture delivered by the opposite parties was used and damaged furniture. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the furnitures but the Opposite parties failed to replace the same.
To prove the case, the Complainant deposed proof affidavit with 8 documents which were marked as ExA1 to Ex.A8. ExA1 is the invoice issued by the opposite parties. ExA2 is the letter from the complainant. ExA3 is the letter from the complainant. Ex.A4 is the letter from the complainant. ExA5 is the legal notice by the complainant with acknowledgement cards. ExA6 is the reply notice by opposite parties. ExA7 is the photographs with receipt. ExA8 is the complaints by similarly aggrieved persons taken from internet.
One Mr. N.Venkatesan, PW2 witness of the complainant adduced evidence by way of filing proof affidavit without any documents.
Per contra the opposite parties interalia contended that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had not received any letters from the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant utilised the furnitures for one half years and then raised the complaint. The goods delivered to the complainant were not inferior quality, used and damaged furnitures. The complainant filed this complaint to tarnish the reputation of the opposite parties.
To refute the claim of the complainant, the Opposite Parties deposed proof affidavit with one any document which marked as Ex.B1.
It is not disputed by both the parties that the complainant had purchased furnitures for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 31.12.2016 from the opposite parties.  Upon delivery of the furnitures the complainant informed the opposite parties that the furnitures were not teak woods and the said goods were inferior quality used and damaged and asked the opposite parties to replace the same. Inspite of repeated follow up by the complainant, the Opposite Parties had not replaced the same.
ExA1 is the order form for purchasing the furnitures for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. ExA2, A3 and A4 are the letters sent by the complainant for replacement of furnitures. Since there is no proper response from the opposite parties for replacement, the complainant issued legal notice dated 20.10.2018 vide ExA5. The Opposite Parties sent reply notice vide ExA6.
On perusal of ExA7 Photographs of the furnitures, it reveals that the said furnitures are damaged. ExA8 revealed that lot of consumers of Opposite Parties reviewed about the products and service of the Opposite Parties.
It is seen from the affidavit filed by PW2 that PW2 is a carpenter and he had inspected the furnitures on 24.11.2019. He had stated that the furnitures supplied by the opposite parties are inferior quality used and damaged.  At the time of filing this proof affidavit the counsel for the Opposite Parties raised objections to receive the same. However, the Opposite Parties had not chosen to file any objections to the above said proof affidavit. The Opposite Parties have not chosen to cross examine the PW2 witness of the complainant.
The opposite parties issued reply to the notice of the complainant vide Ex.B1.  However, the opposite parties had not chosen to file a single document to show that the said furitures are in good quality.  Moreover, they have not filed any documents to show that they had inspected the furnitures.  The opposite parties have not inspected the furnitures even after receipt of complaints from the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the written arguments and documents of both the parties. On careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:-
Since we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Complainant has to be compensated for the mental agony and loss suffered by him in addition to the replacement of furnitures into new one. Hence we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Parties.  We also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them;
a) To replace the defective furnitures with  new one;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
The above order shall be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of this copy of the order, failing which, this said compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
 Dictated by the Member - I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member -I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15th day of May 2023.

 

   Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                            Sd/-
MEMBER-II                        MEMBER-I                            PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1 31.12.2016 Order form issued by the opposite parties. Photo copies
Ex.A2 29.03.2017 Letter of the complainant  Photo copies
Ex.A3 10.06.2017 Letter of the complainant. Photo copies
Ex.A4 09.04.2018 Letter of the complainant. Photo copies
Ex.A5 20.10.2018 Legal notice by the complainant with acknowledgement card. Photo copies
Ex.A6 20.10.2018 Reply notice by the opposite parties. Photo copies
Ex.A7 20.11.2018 Photographs (18) with receipts, CD. Photo copies
Ex.A8 ................ Complaints by similarly aggrieved persons takne from internet. Photo copies

      List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1 20.10.2018 Reply notice issued by the opposite parties. Photo copies

   Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                          Sd/-
MEMBER-II                       MEMBER-I                           PRESIDENT