Date of filing: 21.02.2020
Date of disposal: 21.12.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN. M.Com.,ICWA(Inter), B.L., .....MEMBER-II
CC. No.18/2020
THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Mrs.J.Pavithra, W/o.Mr.B.Rajan,
No.471, Perumal Koil Street,
Nemam Puliayanthoppu,
Vellavedu Post, Chennai 124. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
M/s.SPS TV Palace,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
No.155, J.N.Road,
Oil Mill, Thiruvallur – 602 001. ......Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.S.Nisar Ahamed, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s.Ramesh Babu, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 05.12.2022 in the presence of M/s.S.Nisar Ahamed, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.Ramesh Babu, Advocate counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER- II
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in selling defective product along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to replace the dressing table and cot with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses and cost of this complaint.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant has purchased a wooden cot, wooden dressing table, Bed and Steel Bureau on 24.02.2018 by paying full amount of Rs.51,000/- from the opposite party and the items were delivered on 26.02.2018. The wooden cot was fixed by the staffs of the opposite party. While fixing it is noticed that there were damages in the cot and some portions were broken. The dressing table was also in damaged condition. The damages details were communicated to the opposite party over phone on the same day and on 01.03.2018 the opposite party came down to complainant’s place and noted the damages and also took away the drawer of the dressing table promising that the cot and the dressing table will be replaced within a weeks time. But the replacement never took place and the complainant’s repeated follow up to get the replacement did not yield the result. This made the complainant with stress and mental agony and therefore she sent a legal notice on 24.10.2018 calling upon the opposite party to replace the defective articles with new one and to pay compensation for mental agony. After receiving the notice the opposite party called the complainant for compromise but dragged the matter without any redressal. In the mean while a reply notice dated 13.11.2018 was sent by the opposite party to complainant refusing to settle the claim. Therefore, the complainant has preferred this case before this commission praying that to replace the dressing table and cot with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses and cost of this complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interaila that the complainant purchased Wooden Cot, Wooden Dressing Table, Bed, Steel Bureau on 24.02.2018 and as per request of the complainant all the articles has been delivered on 26.02.2018 in a good condition. The complainant has assembled the wooden cot and dressing table by herself with the help of unskilled persons. After 4 months the complainant visited the showroom and said that the dressing table drawer cannot be fixed properly and requested to repair the drawer even though there was no warranty for the wooden product, the opposite party accepted to repair the drawer and informed to the complainant to collect it after one week. But the complainant never came back to the showroom to collect the drawer till date. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 24.10.2018 with false allegation for which the opposite party gave a suitable reply to the complainant and thus opposite party sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were submitted on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in selling the wooden products and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Purchase Bill dated 24.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 24.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;
Reply notice issued by the opposite party dated 13.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
The complainant vide her submission had proved that she has paid for the items as on 24.02.2018 which has been acknowledged by the invoice No.2129 dated 24.02.2018. Though the unit price of each item not mentioned in the invoice a comprehensive total amount was collected by the opposite party. As per invoice it is clearly mentioned that the delivery date is 26.02.2018 at 12am to the complainant’s place at Vellavedu. The materials were delivered on that day which is not denied by the complainant. There are followups by the complainant to get the damaged units to get be replaced but of no result. The opposite party was served a legal notice dated 13.11.2018, and the opposite party never denies the supply of materials but denied having assembled the cot. His version of statement that the cot was fixed by the complainant herself cannot be accepted since it is general custom of the dealer to fix up the cot on delivery. The drawer of the dressing table did not suit and the piece has been taken back by the supplier i.e. opposite party stands proved. On the other hand, the opposite party has filed their written version which does not speak of their defense. Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that the opposite party has supplied defective materials. Therefore the merit of the case goes in favour of the complainant. Also the opposite party’s written version is half baked and presented before this commission. Thus the complainant’s claim against the opposite party stands good and valid.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in the selling product we direct the opposite party to replace the wooden cot, wooden dressing table within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further we direct them to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and we also award Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him
a) To replace the wooden cot, wooden dressing table within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order
b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the Member II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 24.02.2018 Purchase Bill. Xerox
Ex.A2 24.10.2018 Legal notice issed by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A3 13.11.2018 Reply notice issed by the opposite party. Xerox
List of doucments filed by the opposite party:-
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER II PRESIDENT
