Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/35/2014

P. Satish Kumar, S/o. Late P.Seshaiah. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Venkata Sai Furnitures, represented by its proprietor Mohan rao - Opp.Party(s)

Bhadri Sekhar Babu

26 Nov 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:31.07.2014

Order Date: 26.11.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.35/2014

 

Between

 

P.Sathish Kumar,

S/o. P.Seshaiah,

D.No.18-1-762, Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati.                                                                                 … Complainant

 

 

And

 

M/s. Venkata Sai Furnitures,

Rep. by its Proprietor Mohan Rao,

D.No.10-2-138/A2, Besides Pasuparthi Super Market,

Naveen Plaza,

T.K.Street,

Tirupati.                                                                                …  Opposite party.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 24.11.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.Badri Sekhar Babu, counsel for the complainant, and Opposite party remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for a direction against the opposite party to replace the mattress and sofa set, as they were defective or to refund the cost of the furniture and to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, physical pain and stress caused to him by the opposite party with interest at 24% p.a. and costs of the litigation.   

2. The brief facts of the complaint are:-  That the complainant and his wife on 15.06.2013 purchased 3 + 2 sofa set, mattresses 2 in number and Neelkamal fibre chairs 6 in number for Rs.53,000/- under Exs.A1 and A2. The mattresses are not comfortable and causing much body pain due to hardness and the sofa set is also defective, wooden powder is falling from the sofa set. When it is complained to opposite party, one mattress was replaced with a new one in the month of February 2014 and failed to replace another mattress. Similarly, on complaint about the defective sofa set, the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and repaired the sofa, applied some chemicals in the month of January 2014 and also promised that it won’t give any problem in future. But the problem was not rectified and the same is continued. The opposite party neither rectified the defects nor replaced the mattress and sofa set with new one, inspite of repeated requests and notices. Hence the complaint.

3.  The opposite party, though notices were served on 28.08.2014, remained exparte.

4.  Heard the counsel for complainant. Exs.A1 to A6 are marked.      

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?

(iii).  Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation and costs?

(iv).  To what result?

6.  Point No.(i):-  In order to answer this point, the complainant filed his chief affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 and A2 receipts of payment dt:15.06.2013. Thus complainant has established that he has purchased the goods such as 3 + 2 sofa set, mattress 2 in number and Neelkamal fibre chairs 6 in number on 15.06.2013 from the opposite party. That 2 numbers of mattress and sofa set were found defective. When it was brought to the notice of opposite party, one mattress was replaced with a new one and another mattress not replaced so far. Similarly, the defective sofa set was also not replaced. The allegations made against the opposite party remained un-challenged as the opposite party, though served with notices on 28.08.2014, either attended the Forum personally or through advocate or placed any contest on their behalf in any manner, as such it seems that the opposite party has no case and he accepted the complainant’s allegations.

7.  It appears prima facie that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also it appears that the opposite party has supplied sub-standard goods as seen from the allegations. Another allegation that wooden powder falling from the sofa set is also established by virtue of chief affidavit by the complainant in lieu of evidence. Inspite of number of requests and notices from the complainant, the opposite party failed to make good the defective / deficiency. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the complainant holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 

8.  Point Nos.(ii) & (iii):-  as mentioned in point No.1, as there is deficiency of service, the opposite party is liable to make good the defective / deficiency, but failed to do so. As such the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, these two points are answered.

9.  Point No.(iv):-  In view of our holding on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable for deficiency of service and also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and to pay costs of the litigation. The opposite party is liable to replace the defective mattress and sofa set or to refund its cost. There is no complaint in respect of 6 Neelkamal fiber chairs and the complaint is therefore to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to replace the remaining defective mattress (1 number) and 3 + 2 sofa set or to refund its cost viz.Rs.9,000/- and Rs.28,000/- respectively, totaling Rs.37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from 15.06.2013 till realization. The opposite party also further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for causing mental agony to the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the litigation to the complainant.

For compliance of the above directions, time granted is six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.   

               

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 26^th day of November, 2014.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                      

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: Sri P.Satish Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	15.06.2013	Bill for the purchase of furniture issued by the opposite party for Rs.35, 000/-.
2	15.06.2013	Bill for the purchase of furniture issued by the opposite party for Rs.18, 000/-.
3	24.04.2014	Letter sent by the Complainant’s wife to the opposite party by Registered post with acknowledgement due.
4		Postal acknowledgement from the Opposite party for the Letter.
5	24.06.2014	Office copy of Legal notice sent to the Opposite party by the Complainant.
6	30.06.2014	Postal acknowledgement card from the Opposite party.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-    

                                                                                                                President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite party.