Order No. 11 dt. 11/11/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant booked some furniture from the o.ps. and it was agreed that the delivery of the items would be made within 3 weeks from the date of the order but o.ps. failed to provide to honour the said contract and subsequently the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice asking for providing those articles and also threatened for filing of a case and also compensation against the o.ps. The complainant finding no action on the part of the o.ps. had to file this case praying for deficiency in service as well as for compensation.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant booked Viva Single Door Unit and one Genius Study Table on 20.4.15 at a price of Rs.24,227/- but there was no specific delivery date for the said two items and it was clearly mentioned in the reverse side of the booking form that delivery is depending upon the availability of the materials from the head office and also admitted that the complainant made several communications but the delay was done because of non availability of the materials. The old articles which o.ps. wanted to get back were in the house of the complainant and he failed to remove the old furniture of the wall of his room. When the technician of o.ps. went to the house of dismantling the old unit the same was resisted by the complainant for which some delay was also committed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant booked the furniture from the o.ps.
- Whether there was any delay in delivering of those furniture.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that during the pendency of the case an order was passed by this Forum whereby specific direction was given upon the o.ps. for delivering those articles within the stipulated date of 15 days and the complainant received the articles within the stipulated date, as such, the direction upon the o.ps. for handing over the articles to the complainant is not maintainable but the complainant prayed for compensation for deficiency in service for not providing the furniture within the short period from the date of booking.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the articles were delivered to the complainant and the delay committed by the o.ps. was due to non availability of the materials and it was also decided that the old furniture which were fixed on the wall of the complainant to be removed by the complainant and those were to be handed over to the o.ps. at the time of receiving the booked furniture. But the complainant did not cooperate with the o.ps. and subsequently whenever a technician was sent he was not allowed to remove the furniture fixed with the wall in the room of the complainant. Therefore no delay was committed by the o.ps. and there was no deficiency in service.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant booked the furniture and paid the amount. Though the o.ps. stated that there was no specific date for providing the furniture but it will be presumed that whenever the amount was paid the articles ought to have been delivered within short period but some delay was committed by o.ps. Moreover, o.ps. could have clarified the matter with the complainant at the time of booking the furniture regarding the removal of the old furniture fixed with the wall of the complainant’s house. But no such settlement was arrived at between the parties and ultimately the complainant had to file to redress his grievances. It is a fact that on the basis of an interim order passed by this Forum the articles were provided but the complainant had to take the recourse of law because of non cooperation on the part of the o.ps. Therefore we hold that there was certainly deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and the complainant will be entitled to get the damage to some extent. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.348/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay the complainant compensation a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
