DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A., B.L.,                                                                            ....MEMBER -I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                  ......MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.65/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

Mr.S.Raveendran, S/o.T.K.Sundaram,

F.1.Sai Wisteria Apartments,

No.3, Dr.Ambedkar Street,

Old Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar,

Chennai -600 040.                                                                                   ……Complainant.  

                                                                                 //Vs//

M/s.Rakshini Interiors Decorators,

Rep.by its Proprietor V.D.Loganathan,

No.223-A/9T, M.T.H.Road,

Villivakkam, Chennai -600 040.                                                           …..opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                         :   Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                                     :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 26.09.2022 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not rectifying the defects in the furniture entrusted to them along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.14,500/- with 24% interest per annum till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

It was the case of the complainant that on 01.10.2018 he had given 3seater, 2seater and one corner sofa set to the opposite party for some rectification works for which the opposite party also agreed to change the entire rubber cushion according to the choice of the complainant with seven years warranty.  The opposite party charged a sum of Rs.14,500/- and delivered the sofa back on 09.10.2018.  On delivery of the sofa set the complainant checked the rectification works done by the opposite party and the sofa set was looking proper.  However, after two days of delivery the sofa set level went down and the stitches were torn and the old rexins were seen visibly outside.  When enquired, the opposite party did not respond and after one month visited the complainant’s house but he left without rectifying the defects which caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant.  Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;

To direct the opposite party to refund Rs.14,500/- with 24% interest per annum till the date of realization;

 To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant;

 To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

 On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4. Despite service of sufficient notice the opposite party did not turn up before this commission to file written version and hence he was called absent and was set exparte on 25.09.2019 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.

Points for consideration:

Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not properly carrying out the rectification work with respect to the furnitures entrusted to him has been successfully proved by the complainant by any admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

  Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Receipt issued by the opposite party dated 09.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;

Complainant’s letter to the opposite party for refund the amount as the defects were not rectified properly by the opposite party dated 21.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;

Returned cover from the opposite party was marked as Ex.A3;

 Aadhar card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A4;

Since the complainant had filed the present complaint as party in person this commission did not insist for filing of written arguments and thus we considered the materials available on record to decide the dispute on merits.  Even after providing sufficient opportunities the complainant did not appear for adducing any oral arguments. 

 It is seen that the complainant had filed four documents in support of his contention. Ex.A1 is the cash bill dated 09.10.2018 to show that he had paid Rs.14,500/- to the opposite party.  Ex.A2 is the complaint letter issued to the opposite party requesting to refund the amount as the defects were not rectified properly by the opposite party.  The return cover was filed as Ex.A3.

On perusal of the materials produced by the complainant we could see that the complainant had entrusted his furniture with the opposite party for rectification work.  Further a complaint was also made by way of letter to the opposite party.  However, the same got returned without service to the opposite party.  Though the complainant had made allegations against the opposite party he had not substantiated the same through any material evidence.  Merely issuing a notice to the opposite party will not be a sufficient proof to show that the opposite party had not carried out the rectification work properly. No photographs or independent report about the defective furnitures was filed by the complainant to show that the furniture’s defects were not properly rectified by the opposite party.  In such circumstances we hold that the complainant had failed to substantiate his allegations of deficiency in service against the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point in negative and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:

As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17th day of October 2022.

 

       Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 09.10.2018 Receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A2 21.11.2018 Complainant’s letter to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Returned cover from the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 ................ Aadhar card of the complainant. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

 

Nil

 

 

   Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                          MEMBER I                                     PRESIDENT