Order-10.
Date-24/04/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is thatOP1 is proprietor of OP2 and the OP2 is a proprietorship firm. The complainant on 20-06-2016 purchased one ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and a swing chair in Black and White colour for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- from the showroom under name and style Gold Light and Furniture (OP2). The complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance out of total amount of Rs.65,000/- against invoice issued by OPs. OPs supplied and delivered both the items and complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,500/- has also paid for carrier in cash to the OPs. it is alleged that the complainant within a very short time observed that the said ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set was inferior in quality and the same was defective. The said ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set was also found uncomfortable for sitting. It is also alleged that the material of the said ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set is of poor quality. The complainant informed the OP several times over telephone and also personally visited the show room situate at Home land Mall, 18B, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata – 700019 and each and every time the OPs assured the complainant to replace the same but unfortunately till date the OPs did not replace the said ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set. It is alleged that the OPs have failed to render services towards the complainant – consumer. It is alleged that OPs failed and neglected to replace the subject Sofa set and finally OPs refused to replace the same. The complainant has also alleged unfair trade practice against the OPs. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 29-08-2016 requesting the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.51,500/- with interest along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- for compensation but OPs did not respond. It is alleged that the complainant has been suffering mental agony by the conduct of the OPs. Hence, this case.
None appeared from the side of the OPs in spite of service of summons and subsequent newspaper publication and the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of cash memo, Xerox copy of voter I.D., Xerox copy of legal notice dated 29-08-2016 and other documents on record.
It appears that the OP1 is the proprietor of OP2, OP2 is a proprietorship firm. Op1 is the proprietor of the said proprietorship firm. The complainant as it appears from the cash memo purchased one ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set from OP2 on 20-06-2016 at a consideration of Rs.50,000/-. It is alleged that the said Sofa set was made of inferior quality material and was also defective. It appears that the complainant took up the matter with the OP over telephone and ultimately also sent a legal notice dated 29-08-2016 but OPs failed and neglected to take any action to meet up the grievance of the complainant. It is alleged that the OP refused either to replace the same or to repair the same.
No expert opinion or any report from any competent authority is forthcoming before us to show that the subject Sofa set was made up of inferior quality materials.
Be that as it may none came from the side of the OP to contradict or controvert the allegation of the complainant. The Evidence on Affidavit filed by the complainant also remained unchallenged and uncontroverte4d. it is not the case of the complainant that the OPs did not supply the subject ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set to the complainant. We find that the ‘L’ Shape Sofa Set was supplied to the complainant but found to be defective and was inferior in quality. The complainant we find has also used the sofa set but is dissatisfied in sitting over it feeling discomfort. No evidence, however, is before us that the subject sofa set is made up of stuff/material inferior in quality. We think that the OPs have committed deficiency in service in not repairing the same, nor attending the call of the complainant. In the fitness of thing, we think that the complainant is entitled to get the subject Sofa Set repaired by the OPs immediately.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit against the OPs.
OPs are directed to repair the subject Sofa Set within one month from the date of this order apart from payment of amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.
