<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant U.D. Javalagi against the Opponent M/s. Furniture House Near Suco Bank, Brestwar Pet, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are that: <br /> <br /> The complainant is the resident of Raichur and Opponent is manufacturer of furniture. On or about 26-10-05 the complainant purchased one Sofa-set from OP by paying Rs. 8,500/-. At that time OP represented before the complainant that the sofa-set is made of Teak-wood. Believing his words the complainant has agreed to pay huge amount of Rs. 8,500/- other wise he would not have paid such a high price for the sofa-set. After using the sofa-set within one or two months the complainant noticed that the parts of sofa-set are not made of good material. The legs developed cracks. Especially after summer season commenced many cracks surfaced. Now it appears that the OP has not prepared the sofa-set with quality materials at all. Cushion part has also lost its hardness. The set is shaking. OP has filled the cracks with luppam and made it to appear like quality product. Thus the OP has cheated the complainant.<br /> <br /> The complainant approached OP several times and informed him about the defects in the sofa-set. The OP went on dodging the matter on one pretext or the other. At last sometime in the first week of April-2006 the OP deputed a carpenter who confirmed before the complainant about the low quality of materials used in preparing the sofa-set. But the OP failed to replace the sofa-set. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice calling upon the OP to arrange for replacement of sofa-set with new one or to repay the price paid by him within one week after service of the notice. Failing which the complainant informed that he will have no alternative but to approach the court of law. In spite of service of legal notice and expiry of time given in the notice, the OP has neither replaced the sofa-set with new one nor has paid the price of the sofa-set. The OP has sold the defective sofa-set to the complainant. Therefore he is liable to repay the cost of the sofa-set. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the OP to pay Rs. 8,500/- towards cost of defective sofa-set supplied by him and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to award a cost of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The OP who appeared through counsel has filed written version denying the contents of the complaint contending that there is no relationship of consumer and seller between him and the complainant and the OP has not sold any items to the complainant and as such there is no nexus between him and the complainant. It is false to state that on or about 26-10-05 the complainant purchased sofa-set from this OP by paying Rs. 8,500/-. It is denied that at the time of alleged purchase this OP represented that the sofa-set is made of Teak-wood and that believing his words the complainant purchased by paying Rs. 8,500/-. It is not within the knowledge of this OP that after using the said set within one or two month, the complainant noticed that the parts of the sofa-set are not made of good material and the legs developed cracks and after commencing of summer-season many cracks surfaced and that the cushion part has lost its hardness and the set is shaking and that cracks have been filled with luppam made it to appear like quality product as alleged in para-3 of the complaint.<br /> <br /> It is false to state that the complainant approached the OP to inform the defects in the sofa-set several times and that this OP went on dodging the matter on one or the other pretext and in last week of April-2006 he deputed a carpenter who confirmed before the complainant about the low quality of material used in preparing sofa-set sold by this OP.No-1. Since this OP has not sold any sofa-set to the complainant much less as alleged by the complainant so the question of replacing the same or for repaying the price as alleged does not arise at all. It is false to state that this OP has sold a defective sofa-set to the complainant. Since no sofa-set has been purchased by the complainant with the OP, the question of the relation of the complainant being consumer does not arise at all and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.<br /> <br /> 3. It is worth while to note here that during the course of enquiry the complainant filed I.A.No-1 U/s. 13(1) of C.P. Act for appointment of Forum Commissioner to examine the sofa-set and to report its condition etc., After hearing both sides and keeping alive the question of alleged sale transaction of sofa-set between the parties, the IA-1 for appointment of Forum Commissioner was allowed and accordingly one Sri. Haralayya Carpenter who has been appointed Forum Commissioner has submitted his report. The complainant to substantiate his case has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1 and has examined the Forum Commissioner as PW-2 and has got marked two documents at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. During the evidence of Forum Commissioner, four documents were got marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 which are viz., (1) Notice issued by the Commission, (2) Commission Warrant & (3) Postal Acknowledgement and (4) Commissioner Report. The OP in rebuttal has filed sworn-affidavit of the Manager of Respondent Firm as RW-1 but has not adduced any documentary evidence. However he has filed objection to the Report of Forum Commissioner and also cross-examined the Forum Commissioner as PW-2 at length.<br /> <br /> 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for complainant and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer for having purchased sofa-set from OP as alleged,?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Opponent for having sold defective sofa-set, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought <br /> for?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. In the negative. <br /> 2. Needs no consideration.<br /> 3. Needs no consideration.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 :-<br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that on or about 26-10-05 he purchased one sofa-set from the OP by paying Rs. 8,500/- and at that time OP has stated that the sofa-set is made of Teak-wood and believing words of OP he agreed to pay huge amount of Rs. 8,500/- and after using the sofa-set within one or two months, he noticed that the parts of sofa-set are not made of good material, legs developed cracks and after summer season commenced many cracks surfaced and cracks were filled with luppam and made it appear like quality product. Cushion part has also lost its hardness, the set is shaking. So it appears that the OP has not prepared the set with good quality materials at all and thus OP has cheated him. The complainant has reiterated the same in his affidavit-evidence.<br /> The OP has denied that he has sold any items to the complainant much less the sofa-set alleged to have been purchased by the complainant, as such there is no relationship of consumer and seller between the parties, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He has reiterated the same in his affidavit-evidence.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant has produced two documents at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. Ex.P-1 is the Receipt of purchase of sofa-set. Ex.P-2 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the OP. The complainant in his affidavit-evidence has specifically stated that on or about 26-10-05 he purchased sofa-set from OP for sum of Rs. 8,500/- as per Receipt Bill which is already filed along with complaint. So according to the complainant he purchased sofa-set for Rs. 8,500/- under Receipt Bill at Ex.P-1 issued by OP. This Ex.P-1 a perusal of which shows the nomenclature of the document as “Estimate” dt. 26-10-05 said to have been issued by M/s. Furniture House Near Suco Bank Brestwar Pet Raichur, which reads as under:<br /> U.D. Javalagi<br /> Raichur.<br /> 1)Sofa-set 01set 8,500=00<br /> -------------<br /> 8,500=00<br /> -------------<br /> Advance 2,000=00<br /> ------------<br /> Balance 6,500=00<br /> Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> From perusal of this Ex.P-1 it shows that, out of Rs. 8,500/- (being the price of sofa-set) an advance of Rs. 2,000/- was paid on 26-10-05 by leaving a balance of Rs. 6,500/-. There is no mention in this Ex.P-1 about the payment of balance of Rs. 6,500/-. It is not the case of the complainant that he has paid Rs. 2,000/- as advance on 26-10-05 and thereafter-words he paid the balance amount of Rs. 6,500/-. But it is his specific case that he purchased sofa-set by paying Rs. 8,500/- as per Receipt Bill which is produced by him (at Ex.P-1). As seen above the Receipt Bill produced at Ex.P-1 shows as “Estimate” and it further shows payment of advance amount of Rs. 2,000/- by leaving a balance of Rs. 6,500/-. Further it is not the case of the complainant that he had paid advance amount of Rs. 2,000/- out of Rs. 8,500/- and after the payment of balance of Rs. 6,500/-, but the OP did not pass any Receipt. So in the absence of the same, the contention of the complainant that he purchased sofa-set under Receipt Bill at Ex.P-1 cannot be accepted especially when the very document shows part payment of Rs. 2,000/- by leaving a balance of Rs. 6,500/-. Admittedly the complainant is Lecturer by profession and when according to him he purchased sofa-set for Rs. 8,500/- under the Receipt Bill at Ex.P-1 as stated in his affidavit-evidence, then how can it be said that this Ex.P-1 is the Receipt Bill for having paid price amount of Rs. 8,500/-. It would be more so when this Ex.P-1 shows part payment of Rs. 2,000/- by leaving a balance of Rs. 6,500/-. Hence by any stretch of imagination this Ex.P-1 cannot be said as Receipt Bill as contended by the complainant. If this is so then the complainant cannot be said that he has purchased sofa-set for Rs. 8,500/- under this document Ex.P.1. In the absence of any material particulars it follows that the complainant has failed to prove that he has purchased sofa-set for Rs. 8,500/- from the OP and thereby the complainant cannot be said as consumer of the OP. That being so the present complaint filed by him is not maintainable. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the negative.<br /> <br /> <br /> POINT NO.2 & 3 :-<br /> <br /> 8. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 holding that the complainant is not a consumer of OP. So the Point No-2 & 3 regarding deficiency in service and the claim of compensation needs no consideration as the complaint is not maintainable. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complainant of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-11-07)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur<br /> <br />