Date of Filing:17.10.2007<br /> Date of Order: 29.02.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2105 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> G. Sreenivasa Reddy,<br /> E 38/10, DRDO Township (Phase-II)<br /> C.V. Raman Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 093. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s Woods Incorporation (OAK N’ OAK)<br /> No.38, CMH Road,<br /> II Stage, Indira Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 038. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Sri. Balakrishna.V. Masali<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming refund of Rs. 24,900/- with costs.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased a Sofa Set (Monza, C.S.9, Gray Colour) from Woods Incorporation, Indira Nagar, Bangalore on 11th September-2007 vide Bill No.981 for an amount of Rs.24,900/-. The item was delivered on 17th September-2007 with manufacturing defect. The cover sheet of the three seat sofa peeled off near stitching in the right side seat. A transparent tape was pasted on the defective portion. The complainant had written the same in the copy of the bill at the time of delivery itself and in this regard the complainant wrote two registered letters with acknowledgement due requesting to replace the defective piece. The opposite party has refused to replace the defective piece. The complainant expressed doubt about the width of the sofa set at the time of delivery, the delivery boys measured the width of the door of my house and the width of the sofa set with tape and assured him that the sofa set can be taken in side, without any problem. While examining the sofa set closely after it was brought inside the house, he observed the defect and slit in the cover sheet was pasted with a transparent tape. Again the complainant sent description of the defect by a registered letter with acknowledgment due on 29th September-2007 M/s Woods Incorporation refused to accept the letter. This act of refusal clearly indicates the attitude of opposite party towards the customer and the opposite party decided not to replace the defective piece, totally based on the feed back given by the delivery boys. They are not even ready to take his argument into consideration and inspect the defective piece before coming to a conclusion. The opposite party may be thinking that, the complainant purchased a defective piece at a lower rate. Defect in the sofa set agonized him very much and he spent sleepless nights thinking about it. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. M.G. Peter Advocate for opposite party appeared and filed vakalath. On 24/12/2007 this Forum permitted the opposite party to file defense version on costs of Rs.200/. Defense version not filed and opposite party remained absent on all the dates of hearing. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant filed. Arguments of complainant heard. The matter is posted for orders. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund <br /> of Rs. 24,900/-? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is true from the documents produced by the complainant that, the complainant has purchased a sofa set (Monza, C.S-9, Gray colour) from M/s Woods Incorporation, Indiranagar, Bangalore on 11th September-2007 for Rs.24,900/-. It was with manufacturing defect. A transparent tape was pasted on the defective portion and the delivery boys of the opposite party assured that the defective piece will be replaced and it was written in the copy of the bill at the time of delivery by the complainant. The complainant wrote registered letters with acknowledgement due to the opposite party requesting to replace the defective piece, but they refused to replace defective piece as the claim is totally illogical and false. It is true that, the slit in the cover sheet was pasted with a transparent tape. On 24/12/2007 the Forum permitted the opposite party to file defense version with costs of Rs.200/-, but the opposite party not filed defense version and the case is posted for evidence of complainant. On 4/2/2008 the complainant filed affidavit evidence and the case is posted on 15/2/2008 for evidence of opposite party. On 15/2/2008 the opposite party and their advocate were not present before the Forum and the case was posted for arguments on 22/2/2008. On 22/2/2008 also the opposite party and their advocate were not present. So, in view of all these reasons stated above, the opposite party has no defense to make and the case of the complainant has gone unchallenged. In view of all these reasons stated above, we feel it is just fair and reasonable to award Rs. 24,900/- the amount paid towards the defective sofa set purchased from the opposite party. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 24,900/- to the complainant paid towards purchase of sofa set and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings directly to the complainant through cheque or D.D with intimation to this Forum within 30 days. The complainant is directed to give back the sofa set to the opposite party after receiving the amount of Rs.24,900/-. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly, <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />