COMPLAINT FILED: 29.06.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 22.10.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22ND OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1528/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Amal Gupta,<br /> Flat #S-04, GSBF Apartments,<br /> Dorsenapalya, J.P.Nagar,<br /> 5th Phase,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076. <br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri N.Suran Kumar <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s Ahaa Furniture,<br /> Ms. Harshala (Director),<br /> No.35/8, Langford Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 025.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Neelakantaiah <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S. REDDY,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards refund of the amount paid for purchase cot and two side tables, lawyers fee and other expenses. <br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant purchased one cot and two side tables from the OP on 26.07.2008. OP assured that the cot to be of supreme quality with lifetime assurance both in terms of material (wood, polish etc) and manufacturing (polish, cracks etc). He was impressed with the assurance and commitment provided to him and paid premium price of Rs.41,500/- for one cot and two side tables. To his dismay, none of the quality assurances, material and manufacturing were honoured. He had very stressful time for almost a year dealing with OP to explain issues to the supervisors / managers; visited their showroom, issues still remains stand still, even after replacement of cot and side tables in the month of January – 2009. The factual details are furnished in the complaint, the complainant now wants to return the cot and two side tables and seeks to refund of the amount paid. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable; the relief sought for is not at all amenable. The complainant has used the cot and side tables for more than 11 months and has filed the present complaint as an after thought only to gain illegally. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The side tables and the cots approved by the complainant were delivered to him. The complainant has used the cot and tables without any complaints. The entire dates and events mentioned in the complaint are only to suit the convenience of the complainant. At no point of time the OP has replaced the cot and the tables as averred by the complainant, so for as quality and quantity of the goods supplied by the OP is of approved standard and quality. The say of the complainant that the goods supplied showed signs of deterioration wherein powder dropping were found or the polish started withering off is far from truth, since till this date OP has not received any complaint from any person much less the complainant herein. The withering of polish is obvious as the polish is an applied one and there are chances of withering and the same depends upon the usage of the goods, as such the complaint is out side the purview and not at all within the scope and ambit of the definition of consumer as the relationship between the complainant and OP ceases immediately after lapse of stipulated warranty period i.e. six months from the date of delivery of the goods. When there is no defect in the goods, question of refund does not arise at all. For the legal notice dated 05.06.2009, OP has sent reply narrating the detailed facts, the complainant accepted the goods supplied and utilized the same for more than 11 months which act is nothing but gaining illegally after utilizing the benefits, as such the complainant filed the complaint is to be dismissed. The complainant has made false statement that OP has given lifetime warranty which is practically not possible for wood furniture. Since it is wooden furniture there is always wear and tear on usage of the said furniture and there cannot be any guarantee as suggested by the complainant. There is no substance in the allegations of the complainant that the furniture is of poor quality. It is denied that the complainant has ever visited the show room or explained the issues to the supervisor or manager as alleged. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations and produced the documents along with the complaint he also produced the photos of the cot. OP filed affidavit in support of the version. <br /> <br /> 5. Both the parties filed written arguments. We have perused the pleadings affidavit evidence filed and the documents. After hearing both sides the following points arise for our consideration: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved<br /> deficiency in service and unfair trade<br /> practice on the part of OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points are: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased cot with two side tables for an amount of Rs.41,500/- from OP. On 22-06-2008 order was placed for supply of the furniture by paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- through debit card. On 26-07-2008 the balance amount of Rs.31,500/- was paid through debit card to the OP and OP has delivered the cot and two side tables. On the date of placing order OP has issued estimate containing warranty period of 2 years. The complainant has produced the said estimate. In the tax invoice issued by OP, total consideration amount of Rs.41,500/- is mentioned, but there is no mention about the warranty period. The case of the complainant is after the furniture were delivered, the complainant noticed defect in the polishing of side tables in the month of August’ 2008. OP has attended that defect by re-polishing the same in the month of September’ 2008. Again in the month of November’ 2008 the complainant noticed withering of polish made to the cot. He has brought to the notice of the OP and requested to replace the furniture. In December’ 2008 side tables were replaced at that time supervisor visited the premises of the complainant and assured to replace the cot and it is stated that on 21-09-2008 the cot was replaced with an assurance that it is of good quality. Again in the month of March’ 2009 the polish of the furniture started withering and Powder dropping was also noticed, then the complainant has sent Email pointing out the defects to the OP on 26-04-2009 and also sent registered letter dated 28-04-2009. Lastly he has issued legal notice dated 05-06-2009 for that OP replied denied all the allegations made by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 8. It is contended by the OP that the warranty period was only for 6 months, the same has been lapsed. After the warranty period OP is not liable to refund the amount claimed. In our view as per the estimate issued the warranty period is for 2 years, in the tax invoice, the warranty period is not mentioned but the OP is bound by the terms mentioned in the estimate. The furniture were supplied on 26-07-2008 and the legal notice was issued on 05-06-2009. Therefore within 2 years the complainant is claiming for refund of the amount on the ground of furniture being not of good quality as assured by the OP. The photos produced by the complainant in respect of the cot clearly shows withering of the polish and cracks being developed. The main defence of OP is that after making use of the furniture for more than 11 months, the complainant has come up with this false complaint and the furniture being used for such a period of 11 months, the withering of polish is natural; thus it is contended that there is no any deficiency in service and the complainant having accepted the furniture and made use of the same for about 11 months is not entitled to complain about the quality and other complaints like withering, polish etc. In our view the furniture were supplied to the complainant in the month of July’ 2008, the complainant started complaining about the defect in the furnitures since August’ 2008. OP had gone to the extent of denying that they have replaced the cot and side tables but visiting register extract maintained in the apartments wherein the complainant is residing clearly goes to show that the person from the OP havd visited the premises of the complainant on 13-10-2008, 11-12-2008, 22-12-2008 and 24-01-2009. Therefore the sworn affidavit filed by the complainant supports the fact that the person from the OP showroom has visited his premises for replacing the furniture and for attending the polishing work. Therefore it cannot be said that without there being any defect in the furnitures the complainant has put forward a false claim. Because of the assurance of the OP that the furniture are of good quality, the complainant has accepted the delivery of the furniture and later he noticed all these defects in the furniture. The very fact of supplying sub-standard furniture is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant has parted with an amount of Rs.41,500/- because of assurance of the OP that the furnitures are of high standard quality. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that within period of 11 months the polish of the furniture starts withering and powder dropping. We are fully satisfied that the furnitures supplied by OP are not of up to the standard quality for which the amount of Rs.41,500/- has been received. The fact that OP has refused to refund the amount and has supplied sub-standard furniture are sufficient to hold that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 9. Total amount of Rs.41,500/- was paid by the complainant towards the purchase of the furniture, the complainant is entitled for refund of that amount. OP is liable to refund that amount and get back the furniture supplied to the complainant. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.41,500/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.500/- and get back the furniture supplied to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of October 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm/nrs<br /> <br />