Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/129/2023

RAJIV ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM SHANKER AGRAWAL - Opp.Party(s)

YOGINDER NAGPAL

12 Oct 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	129 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	09.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	12.10.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Harmilap Furniture, Shop No.253/258, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Rajiv Arora.

….Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Sh. Prem Shankar Aggarwal (infact Prem Shankar Agrawal) S/o Lt. Sh. D. P. Agrawal R/o H.No.553, Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

 

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-  

 

Sh. Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Prem Shankar Agrawal, respondent in person.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

                    This appeal has been filed by the opposite party – M/s Harmilap Furniture through its authorized signatory (appellant herein) against order dated 12.04.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint No.300 of 2022 filed by the complainant  – Sh. Prem Shanker Agrawal (respondent herein) has been partly allowed against the appellant by directing the appellant to refund an amount of ₹13,500/- (₹22,500 – 40% towards depreciation for the usage of product) to the respondent alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization and the respondent has also been directed to return the product to the appellant, who shall collect it from the residence of the respondent; pay an amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and pay ₹4,000/- as costs of litigation. The order has been directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, the amount ordered to be refunded & compensation awarded was to attract penal interest @12% p.a. besides payment of costs of litigation.

2]             Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent booked a dining table alongwith six chairs of teak wood for a sum of ₹22,500/- from the appellant on 22.03.2017, however, no bill was given at the time of delivery thereof. The respondent then noticed and as also pointed by some of his relative that the appellant did not use the teak wood in manufacturing the said dining table and rather used the cheap wood or solid board and paced the teak ply in such a manner on its surface and applied the polish to give it look of teak wood shade, which was also highlighted by the respondent at the time of its delivery. As per the respondent, the pasted ply started leaving the surface of cheap wood/solid board. The respondent personally met the appellant at the shop and explained about the quality of dining table and chairs and requested the appellant to either replace the existing dining table set with the teak wood dining set and chairs or refund its price. However, the appellant behaved in rude manner and did not pay any heed towards the complainant.

3]                On the other hand, the opposite party (appellant herein) contested the complaint and pleaded that the assurance with regard to standard practice as 2 inch and not 40 density foam cushion (gaddi), was never given to the respondent as 40 density is for sofa seat and not for dining chair seat. It was further stated that the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the respondent had annexed some vague writing of some unscrupulous carpenter (Annexure P-2) and no report of carpenter who had made the furniture was ever obtained.

4]                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the grounds of appeal, impugned order and the record of the District Commission.

5]                The order of the District Commission has been assailed on the grounds that the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the District Commission ought to have seen that since proceedings went on in absence of the appellant in event of demise of his Lawyer and that is why, his whole case went un-rebutted moving past various loopholes in the cooked stories of the respondent; that the  complaint filed by the respondent is time barred as the same was filed after a gap of five years from the alleged date of purchase of the product and that the District Commission completely ignored the fact that the actual dispute was of non-production of bill/tax invoice/guarantee card etc and not that of any shortcoming in the product.

6]             So far as the plea raised by the appellant that the complaint filed by the respondent was time barred as the same was filed after a gap of five years from the alleged date of purchase of the product, it may be stated here that the respondent served legal notice dated 11.07.2019, which the appellant admittedly replied the next day i.e. 12.07.2019. No doubt, the limitation for filing complaint, as envisaged in Section 69(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is two years yet it is established on record that the appellant did not even redress the grievance of the complainant till the filing of the complaint before the District Commission from the date of legal notice. Therefore, there was a continuing cause of action and the complaint filed before the District Commission on 14.03.2022 was not barred by limitation.

7]                As regards the contention of the appellant that the District Commission completely ignored the fact that the actual dispute was of non-production of bill/tax invoice/guarantee card etc. and not that of any shortcoming in the product, it is not out of place to mention here that during the pendency of appeal, on 13.09.2023, a settlement had taken place between the parties vide which, it was agreed that the appellant would change the dining table in question and the top glass of the said table would remain the same. It was further agreed that the old table shall be taken back by the appellant and in lieu of that, a new table shall be supplied within two weeks. On 05.10.2023, counsel for the appellant stated that new table is ready and appellant is ready to deliver the same to the house of the respondent. However, the respondent submitted that the table has been shown to him on whatsapp only, which was polished one, due to which, he could not ascertain as to whether of which kind of wood it has been made, therefore, he refused to accept the same. Therefore, in view of the fact that the appellant had agreed to change the dining table of the respondent with a new one with old glass top, it is well established that dining table sold to the respondent by the appellant was not of the promised teak wood, which the respondent had booked. This fact further stood corroborated by the respondent by way of placing on record of District Commission the report of an experienced carpenter as Annexure A-2. Therefore, the District Commission, in our concerted view, has rightly observed that the appellant had misrepresented about the product to be of certain quality and certain specifications as promised and thus, the appellant was deficient in providing service to the respondent.

8]                In our view, the District Commission has rightly ordered for refund of the full price of the dining table by deducting 40% therefrom towards depreciation for the usage of the same by the respondent besides awarding compensation and costs of litigation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by District Commission is well based, legal and valid in the eyes of law and as such, this Commission finds no reason to interfere in the same.

9]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

10]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

12.10.2023.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad