STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.387 of 2009)

Ranjit Singh Ghuman s/o Sh. Joginder Singh Ghuman, resident of Flat No.1, Block No.12, Housing Board Complex, Shoghi, Shimla.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

M/s Nav Rattan Furnishers, S.R.  No.6-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. K.S. Baghi, Adv. for appellant

                   Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.  for respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.5.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                           On 25.5.2006, the complainant placed an order for the supply of some furniture items with the OP. The OP promised to deliver the same after two months.  The delivery date was fixed as 25.7.2006.  The OP calculated the value of the furniture as Rs.1,90,750/- and by adding VAT  @ 12.5%, the total amount demanded by the OP came to be Rs.2,15,000/-. The calculation was made by the OP on a sheet of paper (Annexure A-1) showing the value, advance and the date of delivery. The complainant paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- on 27.5.2006 through cheque which was enchased. It was stated that the complainant contacted the OP on 25.7.2006 for getting the furniture.  He was told that the furniture was ready but, on account of bad weather, if polished at that time, it, would not give a good look and, as such, more time was needed to polish the same. Thereafter, the complainant went to the OP on 3.10.2006, on which date he was asked to come on 4.10.2006. On 4.10.2006, the OP sought some more time as some finishing of the polish was still required, and agreed to deliver the furniture, on 10.10.2006.  Again 2-3 days were sought by the OP, to complete the job.  The complainant was asked to take delivery on 14.10.2006.  Again on 14.10.2006, the complainant was told that it (OP) would require some more days for delivery of the furniture.  The furniture was not delivered to the complainant upto 30.11.2006. Thereafter the complainant went to the OP in December 2006, with a request to return the amount of Rs.50,000/-, but to no avail.  It was further stated that, in the meanwhile, the complainant purchased the furniture from somewhere else.  It was further stated that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed. 

3.                           In reply, the OP admitted that the order for the purchase of furniture for consideration of Rs.2,15,000/-, which included VAT, was placed  by the complainant with it.  It was also admitted that a cheque of Rs.50,000/-, in advance, was handed over by the complainant to the OP, which was encashed.  It was also admitted that the furniture was to be delivered on 25.7.2006, on which date it was ready, but the complainant himself did not turn up to collect the same. It was admitted that the complainant visited the shop of the OP with one Bhushan Kumar when the furniture was ready and duly polished, but he, instead of taking the same, wanted his money back. It was further stated that since the furniture was prepared on the particular specifications, given by the complainant, no other person purchased the same and the same was still lying in the premises of the OP.  It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, but, on the other hand, it was the complainant, who was negligent in not getting the delivery of furniture. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 

4.                           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                            Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed, by the appellant/complainant.

7.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

8.                           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that it could not be imagined that a person, who had paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- through cheque, which was duly encashed, by the OP, for the purchase of furniture, would not take the delivery thereof, if it was given to him.  He further submitted that the complainant was always ready to take the delivery of furniture, but it was the OP, which was deficient, in rendering service, as it did not manufacture the same according to the specifications.  He further submitted that even one Bhushan Kumar of Empire Agencies, Sector 7C, Chandigarh was ready to purchase the furniture from the OP.  He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in dismissing the complaint.

9.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the furniture was ready, by the date, it was to be delivered.  It was further submitted that since the furniture was manufactured, as per the particular specifications, given by the complainant, it was not purchased, by anybody else. He further submitted that the furniture was lying ready, in the premises of the OP, but the complainant did not turn up, to get delivery thereof.  He further submitted that, on account of not taking delivery of the furniture, prepared on the particular specifications of the complainant, the OP suffered a loss of more than Rs. 2 lacs.  It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.                       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.  It is an admitted case of the parties, that the complainant, placed an order for manufacturing furniture of particular specifications, with the OP.  There is also no dispute about the factum, that the cost of furniture, and other details, were duly provided by the OP, to the complainant, on a sheet (Annexure A-1).  It is also undisputed that a cheque of Rs.50,000/-, as advance, was given by the complainant, to the OP, which was enchased by it.  Now, the question arises, as to whether the complainant went to the OP, for the purpose of taking the delivery of furniture, which was manufactured, on his particular specifications, or not?  The OP also submitted photographs numbering 12, placed at page 26 of the District Forum record, of the furniture, prepared by it, on the order, placed by the complainant.  Since the furniture manufactured by the OP, on the instructions of the complainant, is of particular specifications, any other customer may not purchase the same.  The amount invested by the OP in manufacturing the furniture, on the orders of the complainant, which is of particular specifications, has gone waste. It is evident, from the affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh, proprietor of the OP, duly corroborated by the photographs, referred to above, that the furniture was ready and he was always out and out to give the delivery thereof to the complainant.  It was the complainant who was not ready to take the delivery of furniture. This fact also becomes clear from the prayer made by the complainant, in the complaint, as he only claimed the return of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, paid by him, alongwith compensation.  Had it been the intention of the complainant to get the delivery of furniture, he would have asked for the same, alongwith compensation for alleged mental tension or for alleged deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP.  The plea of the complainant, to the effect, that he had purchased furniture from somebody else, is also not supported by any evidence, except his own statement.  Even the affidavit of Bhushan Kumar, was not placed, on the record, to show that he was ready to purchase the furniture manufactured by the OP.  After paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance, for undisclosed reasons, the intention of the complainant was not honest, and that was why he did not want to purchase the furniture, which was manufactured on his specific orders, according to the particular specifications.  It was, on account of this reason, that he remained silent for a sufficiently longer period.  No letter was written by the complainant, to the OP, that since it was not supplying the furniture, he would resort to the legal action  against it, under the relevant provisions of law. The District Forum, was right, in holding that there was neither deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice, but it was the complainant, who did not take delivery of the furniture and, as such, he was not entitled to the amount of Rs.50,000/-.

11.                       Even, an the objection, was taken by the OP, in the written reply that the complaint was barred by time, as the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 25.7.2006, the date of proposed delivery of furniture, when the same was not allegedly delivered to him.   It was not a continuing cause of action.  It was a one time cause of action, which accrued to the complainant. He could file a complaint within a period of two years from 25.7.2006, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 24A of the Act but, on the other hand, he filed the complaint on 28.11.2008. The complaint was, thus, palpably barred by time, but no findings were given by the District Forum on this point. However, the question of limitation, being a legal question, can be taken up at any time.  Since the complaint was barred by time, on this ground too, it was liable to be dismissed.

12.                       The order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 

13.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merits, must fail and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-.

14.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

3^rd May 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER