Date of Filing      : 24.01.2020

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 16.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                            ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA (Inter)., B.L.,                                                   ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.07/2020

THIS FRIDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Mr.Gopakumran Nair,

No.5, Golden Amity,

F-86, Anna Nagar East, Chennai -600 102.                                     ……Complainant.

                                                                            //Vs//

M/s.Lofty Exims,

Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Dhinesh Ram,

No.1, Perumal Temple Main Road,

Agraharam (TVS Nagar Annex 1st Cross End),

Korattur (North), Thiruvallur District.

Tamil Nadu.                                                                                    …..opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                     :   M/s.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                              :   M/s. Anbarasu, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates in the presence of  M/s.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s. Anbarasu Advocate counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in the purchase of furniture from the opposite party’s showroom along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization.

Sum and substance of the complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainant that he placed an order for two sets of leather sofas (one in hot gold colour and another in brown colour, two centre tables and four pouffes) from the opposite party during April 2019 for which a quotation was received on 10.04.2019 for a total sum of Rs.6,95,965/- and in the quotation itself it has been mentioned that at least 30 days time from the date of payment of advance would be required for delivery. Accordingly a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and on 04.05.2019 a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the opposite party.  On 03.06.2019 one set of sofa in hot gold colour was delivered almost two months after placing the order, not only the said sofa was different from one shown to complainant in the photographs but there was a major defect in the sofa which fact was immediately informed to the representative of the opposite party along with photographs of the defective sofa.  The opposite party’s Managing Director promised to rectify the defects and to take back the sofa set to the factory.  However, later on it was informed by the Managing Director that it was not possible to rectify the defects and made an offer for discounted price which was rejected by the complainant. The single seat brown colour sofa along with a centre table was delivered on 26.06.2019 but as they did not deliver the sofa till 18.07.2019, the complainant asked the opposite party to deliver the same by 21.06.2019 or to cancel the order and to refund the advance paid by the complainant.  It was specifically informed to the representative of the opposite party that the brown colour sofa is for the entertainment room on the first floor and crane would be required to lift it to the first floor.  But inspite of the information they brought the sofa on 28.07.2019 without any notice and also no crane was arranged by them as promised earlier.  However the complainant arranged a crane with great difficulty but the lady who brought the sofa did not want to wait for the crane to come and left the place with the sofa after delivering a centre table and four pouffes. Thereafter the complainant received an email from the Managing Director blaming the complainant for the non delivery of the sofa making an unreasonable demand of Rs.6,73,238.70/- when the total cost as quoted in the quotation was only Rs.6,95,965/- and also when the complainant had already paid Rs.3,50,000/-.  The complainant sent a detailed email dated 29.07.2019 calling upon the opposite party to deliver the sofa in the next 48 hours failing which requested for cancellation of order along with refund. In spite of the said email the opposite party has neither delivered the ordered sofa nor has the opposite party corrected the manufacturing defects in the already delivered sofa which the opposite party has taken back and also no refund was given.  Thus submitting that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the present complaint was filed for the relief to pay a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization.

Defence of the opposite party:-

The opposite party disputed the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complainant placed an order for two sets of leather sofas (one in hot gold colour and another in brown colour, two centre tables and four pouffes) as mentioned in the quotation dated 10.04.2019 and denied that in the quotation itself it has been stated that the time required for delivery would be 30 days from the date of advance amount has been paid.  Further the advance amount paid by the complainant is only Rs.3,50,000/- and not Rs.5,00,000/- as contended by the complainant. But the opposite party started the work with insufficient advance.  But as per the terms and condition as accepted by them the 30 days countdown shall begin only after receiving a payment of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The furniture order was given by the complainant who was introduced by one Mr.Pradeep who was the President of BNI as his client.  So it was a President’s referral and opposite party faced all the losses even though the complete mistake was on the complainant. Initially the complainant complained regarding the shape of handle of the hot gold colour sofa but the opposite party sent evidence to prove the rightness of it and it was exactly same as Mrs.Ritika the deciding person’s instruction. It was submitted that the hot gold colour sofa allegations are denied with evidences and with regard to the allegation in brown colour sofa scenario, after cancelling the initially confirmed design for brown sofa which was 80% completed at the time of making correction of removing the hip support.  They have framed many false information like they accepted the brown colour sofa even though it is not as expected. There is no deficiency in service by the opposite party and they have work out all the alterations for the satisfaction of the customer and both the sofas were made exactly as per their instructions and confirmations.  But, just to please the complainant, opposite party accepted to reduce the handle size of the sofa by two inches at free of cost just as a favour, by sending it back to their Bangalore Factory by the opposite party bearing the transportation, loading & unloading charges etc.  It is also denied that the lady who brought the sofa for delivery to the complainant had left the place with the sofa after delivering a center table alone and 4 pouffes in the custody of the complainant. Thus alleging that there is no manufacturing defect in the sofa delivered by the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on their part the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 was marked. 

Points for consideration:-

1)  Whether the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in selling the furnitures ordered by the complainant?

2) If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations; 

Sample photos before purchase was marked as Ex.A1;

Quotation of the opposite party dated 10.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;

Email from the opposite party dated 11.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;

Receipt of advance paid by the complainant dated 04.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Defective sofa photographs was marked as Ex.A5; 

Defective centre table photographs was marked as Ex.A6;

Email from the complainant to the opposite party dated 29.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;

Legal notice of the complainant dated 27.11.2019 was marked as Ex.A8;

Reply notice of the opposite party dated 09.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A9;

Power of attorney dated 31.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A10;

On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;

GST Certificate dated 26.06.2017 was marked as Ex.B1;

Quotation accepted by the complainant dated 10.04.2019 was marked as Ex.B2;

Email sent by the complainant and email communication sent by the opposite party were marked as Ex.B3 & Ex.B4;

Whats up communications was marked as Ex.B5;

Reply notice by the opposite party was marked as Ex.B6;

Photos and CD were marked as Ex.B7;

We perused the pleadings and evidences filed by both the parties and as both the counsels represented that their respective written arguments may be treated as oral arguments, this commission considered the written arguments filed by both the parties for determination of the point for consideration.   

To avoid repetition of facts alleged by both parties we are discussing only the essential facts that are necessary to determine the real issues. The crux of the complainant’s case was that he ordered furniture with the opposite party and had paid a total advance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- out of the quotation amount of Rs.6,95,965/- and the complainant placed an order for two sets of leather sofas (one in hot gold colour and another in brown colour), two centre tables and four pouffes.  It was the complainant’s allegation that though 30 days time has been mentioned as required period, one sofa was delivered very belatedly that also with defects and that the same was returned to the opposite party and in the two sets of sofa only one single seat was delivered with the centre table on 26.06.2019.  Later on, when the another sofa set was brought to be delivered by the opposite party through one lady as no crane could be arranged, the lady left without delivering the sofa and by only delivering the centre table and 4 pouffes.  Later on also a higher amount was quoted and demanded by the opposite party the complainant sent an email to deliver the same within 48 hours or to refund the amount.  Thus the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed.

On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party was that there is no defect in the sofas delivered but they took back the same only to please the complainant as he was referred by one Mr. Pradeep who was the president of BNI and they also admitted that the 2nd sofa set could not be delivered as crane was not arranged by the complainant.  The specific case of the opposite party was that as the complainant had failed to pay the required advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the quotation, there is no contract between them and thus sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On appreciation of the documents we could see that as per the quotation given by the opposite party on 10.04.2019 which was filed as Ex.A1 clearly reveals that the total amount quoted by the opposite party for requirements of the complainant is Rs.6,95,965/- and it is also seen that the required advance amount is Rs.5,00,000/- and the time required is 30 days from the date of advance payment.  The email correspondences between the complainant and the opposite party were marked as Ex.A3.  The receipt for the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- was filed as Ex.A4.  Further the photographs of the single seat sofa sets delivered to the complainant was marked as Ex.A5 in which ringlets were found.  Further the photograph of the centre table was also filed wherein cracks were found.  The legal notice and reply notice were marked as Ex.A8 & Ex.A9.  We could see that the opposite party has filed the GST Certificate, Quotation, emails and Whats up communications to see the correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party.  Though it was an admitted fact that only Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid as advance instead of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed in the quotation, the opposite party did not make it an issue and delivered few items to the complainant.  So, this commission could come to a conclusion that there is some understanding between the complainant and the opposite party for acceptance of Rs.3,50,000/- as advance. Further it was also admitted that the sofa set as ordered by the complainant was not delivered to him. This commission could see that from the complaint, written version, and pleadings and evidences only 2 single seater and center table and 4 pouffes were in the custody of complainant. Though the opposite party had submitted that they had taken back the sofa sets only to please the complainant and that there is no manufacturing defects in the sofas the said defence could not be accepted in the absence of any materials evidence by this commission.  Further, though the initial payment was made it is seen that the opposite party had taken extra time in delivering the product.  The defence made by the opposite party that there was intervention in the order with regard to the model by Mrs.Ritika was not substantiated by any evidence.  Also photographs submitted by the complainant shows the apparent defects in the single seat sofa and centre table.  Further as per the version of the complainant it is seen that they were not satisfied with the furniture delivered to him and he wants the order to be cancelled and to take back the furniture already delivered and for refund of the amount.  Even as per the version of the opposite party vide Ex.A7 email he has stated that the following items were only entrusted to the complainant i.e. one coffee table with 4 pouffes and 1 center table.  It is also seen that they have asked for the balance payment of Rs.6,73,238.70/- against the accepted amount for which the complainant had sent a detailed reply.  Thus the opposite party in not delivering the furniture as promised even after acceptance of the advance amount and also demanding an extra amount than agreed as per the quotation clearly amounts to deficiency in service in selling the furnitures to the complainant.  Thus, we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.2:

 As we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service we direct the opposite party to refund the advance of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant and to take back the furniture already delivered to the complainant i.e. one coffee table with 4 pouffes and 1 center table within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Further for the mental agony caused to the complainant we order Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party 

a)to refund a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) after taking back one coffee table with 4 pouffes and one center table within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

d) Amount in clause (a) to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an interest of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 16th day of September 2022.

 

 

       -Sd-                                                 -Sd-                                                   -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                     MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 .............. Sample photos before purchase. Xerox

Ex.A2 10.04.2019 Quotation of the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 11.04.2019 Email from the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 04.05.2019 Receipt of advance paid by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A5 ............. Defective sofa photographs. Xerox

Ex.A6 .............. Centre table photographs. Xerox

Ex.A7 29.07.2019 Email from the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A8 27.11.2019 Legal notice of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A9 09.12.2019 Reply notice from the oppostie party. Xerox

Ex.A10 31.08.2021 Power of attorney. Xerox

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 26.06.2017 GST Certificate. Xerox

Ex.B2 10.04.2019 Quotation accepted by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.B3 …………… Email sent by complainant. Xerox

Ex.B4 …………… Email communication sent by opposite party. Xerox

Ex.B5 ……………. Watts apps communications. Xerox

Ex.B6 09.12.2019 Reply notice by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.B7 ………….. Photos &CD. Xerox

 

 

 

          -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                       -Sd-

  MEMBER-II                                     MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT