Delhi

North East

CC/105/2022

Sh. Devender Uadhyay - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s R.K. Steel Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.105/22

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Devender Upadhyay, E 41, Gali No. 7, Khajoori Khas, Delhi 110090	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s R. K Steel Furniture, WZ 290, G Block Hari Nagar, Opp. State Bank of India, Jail Road, New Delhi 110058	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

04.05.2022 18.03.2024 16.08.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 06.11.2021 he along with his son went to the furniture showroom of Opposite Party and purchased some office furniture items for their new office for an amount of   Rs. 1,26,800/-. Complainant stated that on 15.03.2022 when his son reached his office he saw that the wall mount racks affixed by the workers of the Opposite Party as the same were found uprooted from the wall and hall fallen on his sitting chair and table. Complainant stated that printers and all the things and mirrors were scattered and spread all over the office which happened because of using cheap and poor material in installing the furniture. Complainant stated that on the same day his son made a call to the office of Opposite Party and told about the said incident. Complainant stated that his son also sent photos and videos of the broken printers etc and also sent the CCTV recording with a request to do the needful in order to make good and losses suffered by the Complainant and his son. Complainant stated that Opposite Party did not suggest them the damage control method and put the matter off on the one pretext or other. Complainant stated that when requests did not bear any fruit then his son served a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 30.03.2022 wherein a demand was also made to make the payment of Rs. 1,26,800/- i.e. the price of the furniture and for Rs. 2,25,000/- for mental harassment but Opposite Party did not respond. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,26,800/- i.e. the cost of the furniture and Rs. 2,25,000/- on account of mental harassment. Complainant also prayed for litigation expenses.

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false. It is stated that in the present case there was no warranty attached to the goods supplied to the Complainant. It is stated that as a goodwill gesture the Opposite Party has settled the present dispute with the Complainant by replacing the entire furniture with new wooden racks at its cost. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Rakesh Batra, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased office furniture from the Opposite Party and the same was installed in his office by the workers of the Opposite Party. His case is that the wall mount racks affixed with the wall were uprooted from the wall and had fallen on the table. In this process the laptop, printer etc. were also damaged. His case is that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as the material supplied was of cheap quality.
7. The case of the Opposite Party is that it had supplied the office furniture to the Complainant. Its case is that there is no deficiency of service on its part. The case of the Opposite Party is that there was no warranty on the goods supplied to the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased the materials vide invoice no. 560 dated 06.11.2021. The perusal of the same shows that this is not an invoice rather it is “quotation/rough estimate” and this does not mention about any warranty or guarantee on the goods supplied nor does this show that the installation was to be carried out by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has not led any evidence that the goods purchased by him were having any warranty or guarantee or that it was to be installed by the Opposite Party. Therefore, under these circumstances we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to show that there was any warranty or guarantee on the goods supplied or that it was the duty of the Opposite Party to install the said goods in his office. Further, the case of the Opposite Party is that as a goodwill gesture it has sent its employees to install the furniture on 23/24.11.2021 and the same was installed to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The Complainant has not denied this fact in his affidavit filed in his evidence.
8. In view of the above, we do not see any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 16.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)