| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/215 Decided on: 30.11.2016 Rajesh Kumar Mittal S/o Late Sh.Bhupinder Kumar, aged 56 years, resident of House No.1151 Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala Punjab. …………...Complainant Versus M/s J.K.Industries C-10, Focal Point Patiala(Pb)(Earlier M/s G-Industries D-134 Focal Point Opp Hira Auto, Patiala. …………Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.K.S.Rajpal,Advocate,counsel for complainant. Sh.Mohan Singh Bhatti,Prop. of Opposite Party. ORDER SMT. NEELAM GUP[TA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased some furniture from the O.P., which included 3 seater sofa-01, 2 seater sofar-02 and a launcher. The total cost of the said articles was agreed upon as Rs.48000/- , out of which Rs.10,000/-was deducted as the cost of the old furniture, balance to be paid by the complainant was Rs.38,000/-. Out of the said amount, the complainant paid Rs.5000/- as advance on 1.11.2015 and Rs.15000/- on 2.11.2015. The remaining amount of Rs.18000/- was to be paid to the O.P. at the time of the delivery of the said furniture.The delivery of the goods was done after Diwali(2015).It is averred that when the complainant asked Mr.M.S.Bhatia, who is the manager or partner of the firm to supply him the bill of the goods delivered, but Mr.Bhatia told the complainant that his visiting card on which the details were given was sufficient and in case of any problem he would attend to the same in future and so he failed to give any bill to the complainant.In the month of March, the complainant noticed wood powder(ghun) coming out in 3 seater sofa and the complainant had a telephonic call with Mr.Bhatia on 1.4.2016. Again on 3.4.2016, at 15:18 hrs the complainant sent him the photograph of the defective sofa on whatsapp. But nobody from the firm came to see the defective sofa inspite of various reminders issued by the complainant. Ultimately on 3.5.2016, Mr.M.S.Bhatia visited the residence of the complainant and after seeing the defective sofa, suggested the complainant to apply some medicine on the defective portion for which the complainant was not ready. The complainant insisted Mr.Bhatia to change the defective wood piece and on 8.5.20126, Mr.Bhatia agreed to get the defect rectified but failed to keep his promise. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act).
- On notice, OP appeared in person and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply, Op has pleaded that the delivery of the sofa set ( 10 seater) was given to the complainant in November,2015 and there was no defect in the material i.e. cloth, foam,seats and wood etc. at that time. Unfortunately after 5 months, GHUN affected one arm of the 3 seater sofa. The Op visited the house of the complainant and afterwatching the problem suggested the complainant to use medicine(insecticide) weekly for 2-3 months and watch whether the problem was exceeding in other parts of the sofa or not, and after that the OP will replace the defective part. But the complainant wanted that the Op should put insecticide in the sofa. The complainant insisted to exchange full sofa set but the OP told the complainant that he would exchange only the defective portion and that too after watching for some time. Thereafter, the complainant told the OP to exchange the defective portion and also pay Rs.40,000/- alongwith that otherwise he would move to the court. It is averred that the complainant failed to co-operate with the OP as he did not wait for the result after applying insecticide. As such it was prayed that the OP be saved from the malafide intention of the complainant who wanted to blackmail the OP.
- The complainant tendered in evidence,Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith other documents Exs.C1 to C3 and his counsel closed the evidence.
Whereas OP produced in evidence Ex.OPA, his sworn affidavit and closed the evidence. - The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the counsel for the complainant, OP in person and also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C2 is the photocopy of the visiting card of the OP and Ex.C3 is the copy of the backside of the visiting card on which the details of the price of the furniture purchased by the complainant alongwith payment details is written. Ex.C1 is the copy of the messages sent by the complainant to Op regarding the defect in the 3 seater sofa.
- In the present case, the complainant purchased the furniture in the month of November,2015 and in the month of March,2016 ‘Ghun’ affected one arm of the 3 seater sofa. The Op was ready to replace the defective part but the complainant insisted for the replacement of the full sofa set.
- Today during the course of arguments, the OP argued that only the defective part of the three seater sofa needs replacement and he further argued that if he replaces the whole sofa, then the tapestry/cloth of the same colour and design would not be available. The O.P.also stated that he cannot take guarantee against ‘ghun’, as ‘Ghun’ can affect any kind of wood.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the Op to replace the defective portion of the 3 seater sofa and polish the same. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant, which is inclusive of the costs of litigation. Order be complied by the Op within 30 days of the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
-
-
NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
