M/s PAG Furniture V/S Ramachandra - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Mysore

CC/05/378

Ramachandra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s PAG Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2006

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/378

Ramachandra						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s PAG Furniture						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole, President, 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, claiming damages of Rs.39,918/- on the ground that the O.P. has sold defective wooden furniture to the complainant. The claim of the complainant is as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Bill amount received by the O.P. 27,268/- 2. Damage caused to the books 10,000/- 3. Legal notice charges 500/- 4. Mental agony 2,000/- 5. Miscellaneous expenses 150/- TOTAL 39,918/- 2. It is the case of complainant that he is running an Education Centre and he was in need of furnitures for storage of books etc.. The O.P. agreed to provide the furnitures as required by the complainant, like the book racks, office cabin, counter, wooden racks etc. The complainant placed order for supply of such furnitures and after fabricating the same, the O.P. has received an amount of Rs.27,268/- under a receipt cum bill dated 25-5-04. To the surprise of the complainant, the furniture was defective, as the ply wood and the wood, which was used for manufacture of such furniture was of low quality. The wooden racks have become useless. The costly books kept on the wooden rack have been damaged due to dampness. The complainant addressed a letter to the O.P. on 15-7-05 to replace the good quality plywood and the furniture. In spite of service of such letter, the O.P. has not complied with the same. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 18-11-05, requesting the O.P. to replace the furniture, which was duly served on the O.P. The O.P. has given untenable reply. The bill issued by the O.P. is produced by the complainant and he has claimed refund of the entire amount with cost and interest. 3. The notice sent by RPAD was not served on the O.P., though, the postman tired to contact him for 7 days. In view of the above facts, permission was granted to the complainant to get the notice served by paper publication in the daily Prajanudi. Accordingly, the notice was duly served by paper publication. O.P. remind absent, hence, he was placed exparte. 4. As it is a case of sale of defective furniture, the complainant moved an application for appointment of court commissioner. Accordingly, Sri.Mallaiah was appointed as Court commissioner and his report is received. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his complaint and also produced documents. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. 5. Points for our consideration are as under:- (a) Whether complainant has proved that O.P. has sold him substandard wooden furniture? (b) Whether complainant is entitled for relief sought? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (a) Point no.1: Affirmative. (b) Point no.2: As per final order. REASONS 7. It is the simple case of the complainant that he has placed an order with the O.P. for supply of wooden furniture, which was agreed by the O.P. The complainant has also produced the receipt given by the O.P. for an amount of Rs.27,268/-. O.P. has received full amount on 28-5-04. Now, it is the case of complainant that within a period of one year, it was found that such furniture was unfit for use. It is also contended that the furniture became loose and it can not be used for storing books etc., We have appointed a court commissioner, who examined the furniture and submitted his report. As per his report, the furniture supplied by the O.P. was of sub-standard, and it is unfit for proper use. In view of the above facts, the complainant is established his case, so, point no.1 is answered affirmative and we proceed to pass following order:- ORDER 1. O.P. is directed to refund an amount of Rs.27,268/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. 2. O.P. shall pay this entire amount to the complainant, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. 3. Complainant is entitled for cost of Rs.2,000/- 4. After payment of the entire amount, the O.P. is entitled to take back the defective furniture from the premises of the complainant. 5. Send a copy of this order under RPAD to the O.P. at the cost of complainant. 6. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.

Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole, President, 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, claiming damages of Rs.39,918/- on the ground that the O.P. has sold defective wooden furniture to the complainant. The claim of the complainant is as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Bill amount received by the O.P. 27,268/- 2. Damage caused to the books 10,000/- 3. Legal notice charges 500/- 4. Mental agony 2,000/- 5. Miscellaneous expenses 150/- TOTAL 39,918/- 2. It is the case of complainant that he is running an Education Centre and he was in need of furnitures for storage of books etc.. The O.P. agreed to provide the furnitures as required by the complainant, like the book racks, office cabin, counter, wooden racks etc. The complainant placed order for supply of such furnitures and after fabricating the same, the O.P. has received an amount of Rs.27,268/- under a receipt cum bill dated 25-5-04. To the surprise of the complainant, the furniture was defective, as the ply wood and the wood, which was used for manufacture of such furniture was of low quality. The wooden racks have become useless. The costly books kept on the wooden rack have been damaged due to dampness. The complainant addressed a letter to the O.P. on 15-7-05 to replace the good quality plywood and the furniture. In spite of service of such letter, the O.P. has not complied with the same. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 18-11-05, requesting the O.P. to replace the furniture, which was duly served on the O.P. The O.P. has given untenable reply. The bill issued by the O.P. is produced by the complainant and he has claimed refund of the entire amount with cost and interest. 3. The notice sent by RPAD was not served on the O.P., though, the postman tired to contact him for 7 days. In view of the above facts, permission was granted to the complainant to get the notice served by paper publication in the daily Prajanudi. Accordingly, the notice was duly served by paper publication. O.P. remind absent, hence, he was placed exparte. 4. As it is a case of sale of defective furniture, the complainant moved an application for appointment of court commissioner. Accordingly, Sri.Mallaiah was appointed as Court commissioner and his report is received. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his complaint and also produced documents. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. 5. Points for our consideration are as under:- (a) Whether complainant has proved that O.P. has sold him substandard wooden furniture? (b) Whether complainant is entitled for relief sought? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (a) Point no.1: Affirmative. (b) Point no.2: As per final order. REASONS 7. It is the simple case of the complainant that he has placed an order with the O.P. for supply of wooden furniture, which was agreed by the O.P. The complainant has also produced the receipt given by the O.P. for an amount of Rs.27,268/-. O.P. has received full amount on 28-5-04. Now, it is the case of complainant that within a period of one year, it was found that such furniture was unfit for use. It is also contended that the furniture became loose and it can not be used for storing books etc., We have appointed a court commissioner, who examined the furniture and submitted his report. As per his report, the furniture supplied by the O.P. was of sub-standard, and it is unfit for proper use. In view of the above facts, the complainant is established his case, so, point no.1 is answered affirmative and we proceed to pass following order:- ORDER 1. O.P. is directed to refund an amount of Rs.27,268/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. 2. O.P. shall pay this entire amount to the complainant, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. 3. Complainant is entitled for cost of Rs.2,000/- 4. After payment of the entire amount, the O.P. is entitled to take back the defective furniture from the premises of the complainant. 5. Send a copy of this order under RPAD to the O.P. at the cost of complainant. 6. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.