BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 25^th DAY OF JULY 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP’s to return the advance amount of Rs.7,500/- paid at the time of booking the dining table with interest on 18% per annum, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for mental agony and such other reliefs.

2. Brief Facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant visited the furniture exhibition organized at Tripuravasini Ground, Bangalore on 15.04.2022 organized by OP No.2 where all other furniture shops exhibited their products under single shelter. OP No.1 being furniture outlet has exhibited their products in the said furniture exhibition. Complainant stated that he desired to purchase dining table for their personal use and visited OP No.1’s stall in the exhibition, the representative of OP No.1 agreed to customize dining table as per the requirement of complainant. Therefore complainant gave is consent and booked the dining table with OP No.1 for that OP No.1 has issued order form to the complainant. The representative of OP No.1 promised to deliver the dining table on or before 30.04.2022. On her assurance complainant paid sum of Rs.5,000/- as an advance amount towards dining table to OP No.1 by way of cash on 15.04.2022. The same has been acknowledged by OP No.1. After the advance amount paid and acknowledgement obtained from OP No.1 complainant requested him to provide glass on the table, OP No.1 demanded further payment of Rs.2,500/- as advance for glass. Complainant accordingly transferred sum of Rs.2,500/- through Google pay on the same day that is on 15.04.2022. Believing the words made by OP No.1 representative, complainant waited for the delivery of dining table, but not delivered the dining table on or before 30.04.2022 as they promised. On 26.05.2022 complainant called OP to enquire about the delivery of dining table, OP No.1 clearly refused to the request of complainant to deliver the dining table as it was not ready. Then complainant has requested OP No.1 to cancel the order and refund the advance amount paid to him.

3. Thereafter OP No.1 informed complainant through whatsapp that he is unable to deliver the dining table as it is customized one and also assured to deliver the same within 30 days. On that assurance complainant waited, but OP did not deliver the same. Hence complainant caused legal notice on 22.06.2022 to OP No.1&2 calling upon to refund sum of RS.7,500/- with interest by cancelling the order placed before OP No.1. The legal notice sent to OP No.1&2 were returned with an endorsement as ‘addressee-left’ then complainant sent the legal notice through whatsapp. The screenshot of whatsapp is produced here with. Immediately after receiving the legal notice through whatsapp OP replied on whatsapp to the complainant on 26.08.2022 stating that the table is ready and the pictures of table sent through whatsapp to the complainant. Complainant informed that table shown in the picture is not in accordance with requirement he wanted. Hence OP No.1 again sought 45 days to customize the table as per complainants requirement. On the other day OP representative informed complainant that table is ready to verify the same at their address. Complainant with fond of getting the table asked OP No.1 to send the address where to visit, OP not replied to it.

4. Complainant stated that OP No.2 is event manager organized exhibition called ‘FURNITURE FAIR’ in palace grounds, Bangalore. Complainant alleges that OP No.2 is not in existence after verifying in the website, he noticed that OP No.2 has created website only for cheating the public at large which is not in existence. Complainant has further alleged that OP No.1 is habitual defaulter and the address stated on the invoices, visiting cards which is also fake address which is only created for cheating the public. Even complainant stated in complainant that after going through the reviews of OP No.1 in website there are numerous complaints posted against the OP No.1. Hence he alleged the deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1&2 who are indulging in unfair trade practice by cheating public at large in name of ‘Furniture Fair’. Hence complainant approached this commission to get the relief prayed in the complaint.

5. Notice sent to OP’s No.1&2 through RPAD returned un-served as ‘No such person in the address’ ‘left’ respectively. Hence, notice served to OP’s through E-mail and whatsapp which were duly served on them, complainant has produced screenshots of whatsapp, notice sent to OP No.1&2. The service held sufficient, OP No.1&2 were called out. Both remained absent, hence OP No.1&2 placed Ex-parte.

6. This stage is to adduce evidence of complainant. Complainant filed affidavit evidence along with certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act and 8 documents. Complainant reiterated in the affidavit evidence as he stated in the complaint, documents marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.9. Heard argument of counsel for complainant and we perused the materials on record.

 7. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

8.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                   REASONS

9. Point No.1:- After going through the documents placed before this commission, it exhibits that complainant has approached OP at Tripuravasini Ground which is advertised in the daily news paper as furniture fair organized between 2^nd to 5^th September 2022, which is at Ex.C.7. Through the very document Ex.C.7, it discloses that OP No.2 has organized this furniture fair and called many of the furniture manufacturing companies and outlets to come under roof and exhibit their products which eases to the consumers to buy the products, with abundant choices. Similarly complainant also visited furniture fair on 15.04.2022 and also visited the stall of OP No.1 with intention to purchase dining table. After the enquiry OP No.1 agreed to supply dining table with measurement and pattern as required by the complainant. Finally complainant decided to purchase dining table with OP No.1 believing the representation made by its representative and also OP No.1 assured to deliver the dining table within 30.04.2022. For that complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- in advance, booked the dining table with OP No.1, OP No.1 issued order form dated 15.04.2022 stating that the said dining table costs Rs.30,000/- and received RS.5,000/- advance amount towards the booking of dining table, which is at Ex.C.1.

10. It is permitted to note that as complainant stated, he paid Rs.2,500/- extra only on demand of supplying glass on the top of the dining table to OP No.1 represents through Google pay, which is at Ex.C.2. Upon going through the documents placed by complainant with regard to the payment, complainant has paid Rs.5,000/-in cash and Rs.2,500/- through Google pay to OP No.1 with intention to purchase dining table. Though OP has assured to deliver in as customized dining table within 30.04.2022 did not supply even after May month. Hence complainant called OP on 26.05.2022. OP refused to supply the said product and refused to the request of the complainant. Therefore complainant requested him to cancel the order and refund the advance amount of Rs.7,500/-. As OP No.1 requested to give more time to customize the dining table as according to the requirement of the complainant, but OP No.1 did not supply. Complainant caused legal notice on 22.06.2022, which is at Ex.C.3 calling upon OP No.1&2 to refund Rs.7,500/- with interest of 18% within 15 days. The said legal notice were returned un-served with endorsement of ‘addresse left’. Then complainant sent the very legal notice through whatsapp to the OP’s on 30.06.2022 which were duly served on them and also representative of OP replied to the notice over whatsapp and OP No.1 expressed that the table is ready on 26.08.2022. OP No.1 sent pictures of table and chair to the complainant, which was not according to the required measurement. Hence complainant approached the same, OP No.1 requested to refund another 45 days to customize the table and verify the product at the address on OP No.1. Though complainant asked for the location of OP No.1 outlet, OP No.1 did not send the address of outlet. These all conversations revealed through the documents.

11. Complainant as alleged OP No.1&2 are indulging unfair trade practice as they have provided wrong website address to the customers in their visiting cards, which shows their intention behind the exhibition and towards the customers to show the same. Complainant has produced visiting card of OP No.1, which is at Ex.C.6A. When we going through this visiting card of OP No.1 and the notice sent to him from this commission has returned unserved as addresse left, clearly exhibits that the allegation for the complainant rightly made. By perusing the documents Ex.C.6B which contents the message of whatsapp communication between the complainant and OP No.1, complainant has issued legal notice through whatsapp is proved. Though OP’s are remained absent and placed Ex-parte.

12. Through the communication between complainant and OP No.1, showing the contravertial and dispute about the payment of Rs.7,500/- by complainant. In Ex.C4 OP No.1 stated that he received only Rs.5,000/- later he also stated that he received Rs.2,500/- in cash and Rs.2,500/- through Google pay. Thereafter in Page No.20 OP No.1 asked complainant that through which number he made Google pay and he denies the payment of Rs.2,500/- made through Google pay. Both the statements are controversial by OP No.1, in Ex.C.4 himself stated that he received Rs.2,500/- in cash and Rs.2,500/- through Google pay, later he denies the receipt the amount through Google pay, is unjust and unfair. Also Ex.C.2 discloses screenshot of amount Rs.2,500/- sent to one Rajanikanth Reddy who belongs to OP No.1 has received this amount. Through this complainant has proved that he has paid Rs.7,500/- to OP No.1, Rs.5,000/- in cash and Rs.2,500/- through Google pay which are at Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 respectively.

13. Complainant also produced several grievances entered in OP No.1 website which are only with regard to the furniture fair organized in Chennai and Bangalore. Most of the customers has given their opinion by entering through website that they have experienced badly through this furniture fair and suffered financially and mentally. It shows the furniture fair organized by OP No.2 with an intention to provide marketing platform to the furniture showrooms and also helping to supply good and variety of furniture under one shelter which will really eases to customers, need not roam for searching the required furniture market to market. In both ways it really beneficial to customers and even vendors. In spite of such OP No.1 did not utilize to market their product in fair way but it went in vain and made customers in trouble, is unjust and unfair.

14. Complainant has approached this commission for getting relief for his advance amount paid to OP No.1 in the furniture fair, as we all aware that more than a lakh people visit such exhibition and book their products. But the vendors should not misuse the above and mislead the customers who approached and exploit their rights. In our considered view complainant only approached this commission out of so many customers who might not. Hence in our view OP No.1&2 mislead the consumers by organizing such big event and dupe the people at large. hence even after several requests and even legal notice issued to OP No.1, OP No.1 did not refund the amount of the complainant and the documentary evidence placed before the commission are unchallenged. OPs neither appeared before this commission nor defend their case. Hence complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s and also he proved that OP No.1&2 are indulging in unfair trade practice which should not repeat again. OP No.2 has to take precautionary measures before entering into the assignment of furniture fair who should not cheat the people at large entering in the fair like this. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

15. Point No.2:- Since complainant has paid Rs.7,500/- as advance amount and also its proved through the documentary evidences. Hence he is liable to get refund. OP No.1 has no right to retain the amount of complainant without providing any product. Hence OP No.1 is liable to refund Rs.7,500/- with interest. Complainant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, compensation for the mental agony suffered by complainant, which seems to be exorbitant. In our considered view Rs.5,000/- towards compensation is just in the end of justice and Rs.5,000/-cost of litigation.

16. Both OP No.1&2 have mislead the customers at large by organizing fair for 4 days attracting more than 2 to 3 lakh people and showed the product at fair. When such being the case many customers have undergone similar bad experience out of this many visitors might have caused and might have affected public at large. After going through the activities, who suffered by placing order in furniture fair. Hence in our considred view complainant is only person who approached this commission and drew our attention to such activities of OP No.1&2, are liable to pay punitive damages to the consumer welfare fund to stop unfair trade practice under Sec.39(1)(g) under Consumer Protection Act 2019. In our considered view it is just,  to impose Rs.20,000/- to OP No.1&2 as punitive damages deposited to Consumer Welfare Fund. For the foregoing reasons we answer point No.2 in partly affirmative.

17. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Complaint filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is partly allowed.

ii) OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.7,500/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 15.04.2022 till realization. OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost within 30 days from the date of order failing which OP No.1 shall pay interest at the rate of 10% on Award amount from the date of order till realization.

iii) OP No.1&2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards punitive damages U/S 39(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deposited to the Consumer Welfare fund within 30 days from the date of order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25^th day of JULY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL