O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the grievance of the complainant are that the complainant had placed an order over phone for purchase of Air Sofa-Cum-bed from Op after seeing the advertisement in Sony channel. Op is running a registered office of Tele Marketing of this product in Mumbai. Complainant had booked the Air sofa-cum-bed with Op through order bearing No.M830387 in the month of September 2009 which cost Rs.7,858/- op sent the product through courier to the address of complainant’s working place with invoice No.V000054505 dated 12/09/2009. Complainant had paid entire cost of the product in a sum of Rs.7,293/- plus transportation charges which comes to Rs.7,858/-. Soon after he received the product and verified it, it was in damaged condition. Immediately, complainant had brought to the notice of Op regarding the damage in the delivered product and requested to replace the same by sending new piece of product. Accordingly, complainant sent back the damaged item to the Op by paying courier charges of Rs.2,320/-. Op had sent another piece of Air Sofa-cum-bed to the complainant which was again in damaged condition. The same has been intimated to Op, Op asked complainant to send a sum of Rs.2,000/- along with damaged product, agreeing to send new one. But the complainant lost his interest to purchase the item, he didn’t send the product and money. Complainant had requested several times to refund his amount and take back their product. But Op not responded to complainant’s request. Hence, complainant has approached this forum to seek relief from Op by directing him to refund the paid amount of Rs.7,293/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also direct op to take back their product from complainant.<br /> <br /> Notice sent to Op through speed post with acknowledgement due. Notice was duly served on OP. <br /> <br /> Op was absent on the date he was called upon to appear, no one represented the Op. Hence he is placed ex-parte.<br /> In the course of enquiry, complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating as what is stated in the complainant. Heard the arguments of complainant, who is in person and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 1. It is the case of the complainant that he believing the publicity made in Sony T.V channel regarding the advantages of item and service of Op, he had placed a telephonic order to purchase Air sofa-cum-bed from Op’s telemarketing establishment. On the basis of complainant’s order bearing No.M830387 Op sent a product along with invoice which contained the particulars pertaining to the products including the date of delivery i.e on 12/09/2009. For that complainant had paid Rs.7,293/- towards the cost of the product. After delivery he found that there was damage in the said goods and the same has been intimated to Op and requested Op to replace the item. Op had agreed to replace if complainant send back the damaged one. So complainant sent back the damaged goods to Op by paying courier charges of Rs.2,320/- immediately. In the month of November Op sent another piece of same product, which was again found to be damaged. After information given to Op, Op demanded Rs.2,000/- to replace with new one. Since complainant lost interest to buy the product, demand his money to be refunded by taking their goods back.<br /> 2. Complainant has produced a copy of invoice which contain the particulars of the product including cost of Rs.7,293/-, but the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he had paid Rs.7,293/- plus transportation cost which comes to Rs.7,858/-. Complainant has produced material document of payment of Rs.7,293/- only. Complainant has not produced bill regarding the courier service of Rs.2,320/- which was availed by the complainant while sending the damaged product as mentioned in the complaint. <br /> 3. As referred to above, the complainant had bitter experience of having suffered with a defective sofa got it replaced again for his misfortune the second air sofa sent by Op was also found defective as the air filled to it was leaking and within short span of time the sofa would be come useless due to lack of air. The complainant of course did not get this sofa referred to an expert or got an expert appointed to find out whether there is manufacturing defect in it or not. However, considering the plight of the complainant we directed the complainant to bring the air sofa to this forum got air filled and when we checked after about 10 or 15 minutes we saw from our eyes that air sofa had lost all air filled in and had become useless by getting itself converted into waste cover which itself reflected the intrinsic defect. <br /> 4. This is the case where the Op through his advertisement in TV and other media attracted innocent consumers to purchase their products by paying their hard earned money being carried away with that advertisement having no opportunity to check and examine the quality physically will be duped finally by supplying this kind of wasteful products. Therefore, the Op who is a dealer of air sofa is expected to supply quality products with all usage quality to the consumers. Op besides causing deficiency in service found to have indulged in unfair trade practice Op has not contested this complaint despite service of notice. Thus we find no reasons to discard the grievance of the complainant, material documents and evidence adduced and demonstration he has made before us to exhibit the defective product supplied by the Op. Hence, we accept the cause of the complaint and hold that complainant is entitled for relief he sought for. With the result, we pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> 1. Op is directed to pay Rs.7,293/- which he had paid towards the product.<br /> 2. For mental agony and inconvenience caused due to deficiency in service, Op shall pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant. <br /> 3. Op shall not henceforth indulge in supplying such type of defective products to the consumers and he is thereby restrained in continuing such acts of unfair trade practice by acting Under Section 14 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 4. On the Op paying the cost of sofa and damages to the complainant he shall return the sofa cum bed to the Op. <br /> 5. Op shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 21st April 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />