JUDGEMENT
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased a bed room set containing one box bed, three wardrobe-one, dresser one, mattress one along with one set LCD Cabinet (Free Gift) from the furniture showroom of op/Jalan & Sons, Modfurn Furniture, City Centre-II, New Town, 1st Floor, Shop N0. A-101, Rajarhat, Kolkata-7000157 on payment of Rs.53,000/- from the op dated 05.01.2014.
The specific case of the complainant is that as per the advertisement wherein it was displayed by the op that the product is water resistance and the complainant being convinced by the op about its quality, he purchased the said set of furniture but after passing of few months he noticed that a portion of bed room box has been swollen off due to little bit of water and a bump have been observed on certain areas impacted with the water for which the complainant have made complaint before the ops in the 1st week of February, 2014 and visited the showroom personally and asked them to take appropriate steps to resolve the defects and requested them to visit and check-up the furniture at his residence. But the op did not pay any heed in the matter and no steps was taken by them regarding the proper services to be rendered from their end as per complaint.
Fact remains it is stated by the complainant that the ops gave incomplete and misleading information that advertised in the newspaper about the water resistance of the furniture and at the time of purchasing this bed room set, the complainant was also not informed that the product was Chinese Product as delivered by the op to the complainant, and finding it difficult to get proper services from the op, the complainant have sent a mail to Mr. Promode Jalan, the Managing Director of op on 24.02.2014, but the complainant did not receive any reply from the op. Under this situation the complainant took up the matter with Consumer Affairs Department, 11A Mirza Ghalib Street who tried, to resolve the issue on 23.04.2014 but failed. So the complainant ultimately filed a complaint before this Forum for redressal.
In its written version, the op stated that the alleged complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law since the case is motivated, concocted and baseless, imaginary and does not sustainable. It is alleged, that the complainant filed this case purportedly and with ulterior motive and this should be rejected with exemplary cost.
The ops stated that in the newspaper advertisement there was not mentioned anywhere regarding manufacture of furniture by China or other country as alleged by the complainant. It is also stated that in the advertisement wherein stated water resistance that does not mean to pull down on the water like water proof wrist watch available in the market, but to protect from rain in the rainy season of the furniture and the alleged statement by the complainant such as “swallowed off due to little bit of water and a bump have been noticed on the areas impacted with the water” a false contrary to newspaper advertisement and thus put the complainant to strict proof thereof. Fact remains that at the mediation meeting of the Consumer Affairs Department in the presence of both sides on 23.04.2014, the authority not passed any order in favour of the complainant for which the complainant was became furious and not attended the next meeting but made a false complaint before this Ld. Forum for illegal monetary gain. So it is stated by the ops that there is no question of provocative advertisement from their side at any time and the complainant on his own being satisfied, he purchased the bed room set and as such replacement/refund of money/compensation on the ground of Chinese Product does not arise as allegedly claim by the complainant.
Decision with reasons
On in depth study of the complaint and the written version of the op including the arguments made by both the Ld. Lawyers, we have found that the specific case of the complainant is that as per the advertisement of the op wherein it was mentioned that the product is water resistance and the complainant being convinced by the op about its quality though purchased the said set of furniture but after few months he observed a portion of bed room box has been swollen off due to little bit of water and a bump have been noticed on the certain areas of bed impacted with the water for which the complainant have made complaint before the ops and visited the showroom personally and asked them to take appropriate steps to resolve the defects and requested to visit and check-up the furniture. But the op did not pay any heed in the matter and no steps was taken by them regarding the proper attention to be rendered by them as per complaint.
On the contrary it is alleged by the op that in the newspaper advertisement there was not mentioned regarding manufacture of furniture by China or other country as alleged by the complainant. It is also stated that in the advertisement wherein stated water resistance that does not mean to pull down the bed room set on the water like water proof wrist watch available in the market but to protect from rain in the rainy season and the alleged statement such as “swollen off due to little bit of water and a bump have been noticed on the certain areas impacted with the water” a false contrary to newspaper advertisement and put the complainant to strict proof thereof.
The main contention of the op is that the complainant being satisfied at the showroom, purchased the furniture set and also availed the free gift LCD TV Cabinet worth of Rs. 15,900/- as displayed in the advertisement with an offer through the reduction price of the Bed Room set as advertised but now for illegal gain made this complainant on flimsy ground of Chinese production and also took the plea that the certain area of bed swallowed off due to little bit of water on bed room set which cannot be entertained by this Forum.
Considering the above materials on record, we are confirmed that the complainant purchased the bed room set on going through the advertisement as published by the op and he is no doubt a customer under the op no.1 he is also a consumer of both the ops, then it is liability of the ops to attend the defects as raised by to the complainant when they sold this bed room set to him. Fact remains in spite of several persuasions by the complainant the op did not attend the complaint and checked the damaged the bed room set at his residence wherein it was installed inspite of assurances of free service as displayed in their advertisement which is a gross misconduct and unfair trade practice on the part of the op. It is a fact that there was no warranty which have been given by the op is mentioned in the bill which handed over to the complainant. Neither it was mentioned anywhere that the sold furniture set is a Chinese product but after paying such cost for the furniture set, the complainant being a consumer definitely can ventilate his grievance if any defects arises after such purchase of a few months of the set, but the seller should not behave carelessly like this way by avoiding to resolve the defects as raised by the complainant/purchaser who put in constants and being helpless ran from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance. Since the complainant in its evidence has emphatically stressed about the defects of the bed set only and also as a proof of evidence he produced two photographs of this modern bed but in absence of document/evidence as an proof of whole bed room set, we cannot take any view for the total furniture set being delivered to him. It is invariably true that the complainant purchased the whole furniture set with reduction price along with the offer of gift item as shown in the advertisement. Though in this advertisement, no warranty was offered and the complainant not been able to furnish any proof that Chinese product have been sold to him but as a consumer he should be rendered proper attention by the ops and as and when he made this complaint before them.
For such neglected attitude of the ops, being the seller of the furniture set to the complainant, they have responsibility to render proper attention to the consumer in case of need when any grievance raised by the complainant which they failed to do as per complaint of the complainant.
So, we are of the view that since the ops are negligent to render proper services on their part and to restrain the defects as made in the complaint, they cannot evade its responsibility and escape to render services for the defective furniture set as supplied to the complainant. Since the complainant made complaint with all evidence only for the bed set, invariably, he cannot claim relief against the full bed room set. But truth is that for the sake of justice, the relief can be given only for the defective/damaged modern bed for which the complainant incurred the cost of Rs. 21,000/- and purchased from the ops who have not given any proper free service and fact remains defects has not been removed by the ops in spite of best assurance of service to be given by them.
Moreover the ops by filing their BNA (filed on 17.10.2012) has submitted in page – 3 para – 1 that op is willing to replace and or to repair the disputed goods and so there is sufficient ground to allow this complainant.
In the back drop of the state of affairs, we are inclined to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of ops as enshrined u/s 2(i)(g) and (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986 for causing hardship, mental agony and discomfort of the complainant and as such both the ops are liable to replace the bed (modern) only or pay compensation along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
The ops are jointly and severally directed to replace the bed within 30 days from the date of this judgement failing which compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to the complainant by them.
If the ops are neglected to comply the above order, penal action/proceedings shall be initiated u/s 27 of C.P. Act, 1986.
