o p bajaj V/S mercy thomas - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/218

mercy thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

o p bajaj - Opp.Party(s)

in person

17 Apr 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/218

mercy thomas						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
o p bajaj						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 17th APRIL 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 218/2009 COMPLAINANT Mercy Thomas, #15, 5th Main, Jayamahal Ext., Bangalore 560 046. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Bajaj, Sai Furniture, A-8 Man Sarvorar Garden, New Delhi 110 015. 2. Bajaj/Mr. Khan, #1, 13th Cross, Cholur Palya, Behind Prasana Talkies, Magadi Road, Bangalore 560 023. Advocate (Ramu. S) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of the sofa set or replace the defective sofa set with a brand new defect free one and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a sofa set for a total cost of Rs.60,000/- in the month of October 2008 from OP in the exhibition held at Kanteerva Stadium, Bangalore. When the sofa set was delivered to her home on examination she observed the cloth used was of inferior quality including that of a cushion and there are some cracks in the table. Immediately she brought the said defects to the notice of the OP, there was no positive response. Within a span of 2-3 months the said sofa set became useless because of its poor quality. Though complainant invested her hard earned money she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. It is all because of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant after examining the sofa set, testing its quality, description came forward to purchase the same. The said set is worth of Rs.62,250/-, on negotiation OP agreed to sell the same for Rs.60,000/-. Complainant paid only Rs.55,000/- she is in due of another Rs.5,000/-. When OP made demand for payment of the said amount in due this false and frivolous complaint is filed. There is no defect in the manufacture of the said sofa set nor it is of an inferior quality as contended by the complainant. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has purchased one sofa set in an exhibition held at Kanteerva Stadium, Bangalore from OP in the month of October 2008. OP quoted the cost at Rs.62,250/-, on discount finally OP agreed to sell the said sofa set for Rs.60,000/-. Complainant paid the said Rs.60,000/-, OP passed the receipt. A document to that effect is produced. Now it is contended by the complainant that OP promised her to supply a sofa with a cushion of sleepwel company and use of the cloth, wood is of higher quality. But to her utter shock and surprise within 2-3 months from the date of purchase she noticed the crack in the table legs and underneath cover was stormed, cushion of sleepwel company not used. Thus felt that she is duped. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to rectify the defect in the said sofa set or refund or replace, went in futile. Hence she felt the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP has contended that complainant after examination of the said sofa set being satisfied with the quality, description purchased the same. Of course what is the quality of cushion that is used cannot be said because it is covered with the some other designed clothe and what is the actual clothe used beneath the said sofa also cannot be seen. The fact that cracks appeared in the legs of the sofa is evidenced by production of photographs. The contents of the said photographs are not disputed by the OP. Under such circumstances we find the defence of the OP is just a defence for defence sake, may be to shirk their responsibility and obligation. 8. If the OP is sure of supplying the good quality of the furniture to the complainant, nothing prevented the OP to get appointed a Court Commissioner an expert in the field to examine the said set and submit the report. But no such steps are taken. That means to say OP admits with regard to the poor quality of the material supplied including that of a cushion. There is no proof of use of sleepwel cushion in the said sofa set. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant. 9. The other contention of the OP is that though complainant is required to pay Rs.60,000/- she paid only Rs.55,000/-. When they made claim of remaining Rs.5,000/- this false and frivolous complaint is filed. Complainant has produced the receipt for having paid Rs.55,000/- plus Rs.5,000/-. OP acknowledged the same. When that is so, that defence of the OP appears to be baseless. Complainant invested her hard earned money of Rs.60,000/- to get the defect free sofa set, unfortunately she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment because of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount is expected to deliver the defect free sofa set, but it failed in its obligation. We are satisfied that complainant for no fault of her, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss because of the inherent manufacturing defect in the said furniture. Under such circumstances she deserves the relief as prayed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the said defective sofa set with a brand new defect free sofa set of the same model for the same cost within 2 months from the date of communication of this order and take back the defective set. Failing in which OP is directed to refund Rs.60,000/- the cost of the sofa set and take back the defective sofa set and pay a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of April 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 17th APRIL 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 218/2009 COMPLAINANT Mercy Thomas, #15, 5th Main, Jayamahal Ext., Bangalore 560 046. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Bajaj, Sai Furniture, A-8 Man Sarvorar Garden, New Delhi 110 015. 2. Bajaj/Mr. Khan, #1, 13th Cross, Cholur Palya, Behind Prasana Talkies, Magadi Road, Bangalore 560 023. Advocate (Ramu. S) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of the sofa set or replace the defective sofa set with a brand new defect free one and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a sofa set for a total cost of Rs.60,000/- in the month of October 2008 from OP in the exhibition held at Kanteerva Stadium, Bangalore. When the sofa set was delivered to her home on examination she observed the cloth used was of inferior quality including that of a cushion and there are some cracks in the table. Immediately she brought the said defects to the notice of the OP, there was no positive response. Within a span of 2-3 months the said sofa set became useless because of its poor quality. Though complainant invested her hard earned money she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. It is all because of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant after examining the sofa set, testing its quality, description came forward to purchase the same. The said set is worth of Rs.62,250/-, on negotiation OP agreed to sell the same for Rs.60,000/-. Complainant paid only Rs.55,000/- she is in due of another Rs.5,000/-. When OP made demand for payment of the said amount in due this false and frivolous complaint is filed. There is no defect in the manufacture of the said sofa set nor it is of an inferior quality as contended by the complainant. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has purchased one sofa set in an exhibition held at Kanteerva Stadium, Bangalore from OP in the month of October 2008. OP quoted the cost at Rs.62,250/-, on discount finally OP agreed to sell the said sofa set for Rs.60,000/-. Complainant paid the said Rs.60,000/-, OP passed the receipt. A document to that effect is produced. Now it is contended by the complainant that OP promised her to supply a sofa with a cushion of sleepwel company and use of the cloth, wood is of higher quality. But to her utter shock and surprise within 2-3 months from the date of purchase she noticed the crack in the table legs and underneath cover was stormed, cushion of sleepwel company not used. Thus felt that she is duped. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to rectify the defect in the said sofa set or refund or replace, went in futile. Hence she felt the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP has contended that complainant after examination of the said sofa set being satisfied with the quality, description purchased the same. Of course what is the quality of cushion that is used cannot be said because it is covered with the some other designed clothe and what is the actual clothe used beneath the said sofa also cannot be seen. The fact that cracks appeared in the legs of the sofa is evidenced by production of photographs. The contents of the said photographs are not disputed by the OP. Under such circumstances we find the defence of the OP is just a defence for defence sake, may be to shirk their responsibility and obligation. 8. If the OP is sure of supplying the good quality of the furniture to the complainant, nothing prevented the OP to get appointed a Court Commissioner an expert in the field to examine the said set and submit the report. But no such steps are taken. That means to say OP admits with regard to the poor quality of the material supplied including that of a cushion. There is no proof of use of sleepwel cushion in the said sofa set. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant. 9. The other contention of the OP is that though complainant is required to pay Rs.60,000/- she paid only Rs.55,000/-. When they made claim of remaining Rs.5,000/- this false and frivolous complaint is filed. Complainant has produced the receipt for having paid Rs.55,000/- plus Rs.5,000/-. OP acknowledged the same. When that is so, that defence of the OP appears to be baseless. Complainant invested her hard earned money of Rs.60,000/- to get the defect free sofa set, unfortunately she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment because of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount is expected to deliver the defect free sofa set, but it failed in its obligation. We are satisfied that complainant for no fault of her, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss because of the inherent manufacturing defect in the said furniture. Under such circumstances she deserves the relief as prayed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the said defective sofa set with a brand new defect free sofa set of the same model for the same cost within 2 months from the date of communication of this order and take back the defective set. Failing in which OP is directed to refund Rs.60,000/- the cost of the sofa set and take back the defective sofa set and pay a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of April 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.