By Smt. Mini Mathew, Member
1. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 25-01-2013 he purchased an easy chair from the opposite party's shop at Kottakkal after paying an amount of Rs.3,000/-. The opposite party issued a bill to the complainant for an amount of Rs.3,000/- and he paid the bill amount on the same day itself. But within two days of purchase the easy chair is damaged and became useless. The complainant informed the opposite party and he was asked to come after two weeks. Meanwhile, the officials of the Company visited the shop and promised that it can be repaired or substituted. After two weeks as suggested by the opposite party the complainant entrusted the easy chair to the opposite party's shop at Kottakkal. At the time of entrusting the easy chair they collected telephone number of the complainant and informed him that they will call him within a short period. But there was no favourable reply on the side of the opposite party. Subsequently during the month of March, 2013 the complainant had been to the shop of opposite party and enquired about the chair. At that time the opposite party undertakes that they will sent the chair to the manufacturing company and the company will repair the chair and it will be given back to complainant within a reasonable time. But, later on they informed that they are not in a position to substitute a new chair to the complainant.
2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Opposite party's contention is that there is no consumer-trader relationship between the complainant and this opposite party because the complainant has not purchased any goods from the shop of this opposite party. The document produced along with the petition itself will show that there are no goods purchased by the complainant from the shop of the opposite party. The document produced is a 'Quotation' to Mr. Jayachandran, Kottakkal. It is only an intimation or an offer for sale. If the complainant has purchased any goods from the shop of the opposite party, there will be regular bill instead of “Quotation'. The second contention raised by the opposite party is that on 25-01-2013 the complainant had been to the shop of the opposite party and asked for a quotation of an easy chair, that was given to the complainant and he misused the same and came before this Forum with this complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of chief affidavit filed by him and document marked as Ext.A1. Even though several chances had already been given opposite party has not cared to file counter affidavit. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides.
4. The main points to be considered are:-
(i) Whether this complaint is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the opposite party has deficient in service?
(iii) If so, remedy and cost?
5. Point (i) and (ii):-
The main contention of opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable . Since there is no consumer-trader relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. For proving that point the opposite party put forward an argument that the document produced along with the complaint ie., Ext.A1 is only a 'quotation'. A quotation means an offer for sale. It is not a purchase bill. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant entered the shop and took a quotation from the shop and had misused by it. It cannot be accepted or believed a man with basic common sense will swallow such an allegation. If the complainant had done so definitely the opposite party would have approached the police and made a complaint against the complainant. No such complaint or case against this complainant till this day. Only for argument sake now opposite party came before this Forum with a new case. Here the complainant's case is that he has purchased one easy chair on 25-01-2013 after paying Rs.3,000/- being it's value. He has produced Ext.A1 document to that effect. When such a document is produced by the complainant before this Forum how can we discredit the complainant or the said document. Moreover it is a fact that the damaged chair has been returned to the opposite party to get it repaired. So far opposite party has not cared to return the same after repair it nor has to returned the amount received from the complainant. So our firm view is that even though Ext.A1 is a quotation it is a genuine one not a concocted one. Definitely there is consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. Since the goods was purchased paying Rs.3,000/- as consideration. So this complaint is maintainable.
6. When the complainant enquired the matter to the opposite party they told that they are ready to deliver the chair after repair and the promise was repeated several times. But opposite party has not taken any steps to solve he problem of complainant. Opposite party even now did not care to refund the amount received from the complainant. A reputed firm like opposite party failed to rectify the defects and return the same to the complainant nor has he cared to return the amount he received as cost of the chair. It is definitely a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence the supplying of defective chair to the complainant and thereafter not replacing the same amounts to deficiency in service as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. On perusal of the documents and other evidences it can be clearly seen that opposite party has not taken any initiative to cross examine the complainant and to elicit the truth. The opposite party in their Notes of Arguments submitted on 13-10-2014 has vehemently argued that the complainant has abstained from the witness box but it was the duty of the opposite party to challenge the veracity of the Ext.A1 document marked by the complainant. With regard to the returning of the furniture to the opposite party, the opposite party should have cross-examined the complainant inspite of several opportunities granted tot he opposite party, they have not taken any steps either to cross examine the complainant nor to submit the counter affidavit.
8. We cannot believe the defence of the opposite party that the complainant approached the opposite party's shop and got a quotation, subsequently misused it for an unlawful gain. No personal animosity between the complainant and the opposite party is alleged to foist a false and fabricated case for monitory gain. So this Forum feels that there is nothing unbecoming in the complaint and the chief affidavit filed by the complainant. We are not clinching upon hyper-technicalities to disbelieve and discard the story of a poor complainant. If it was for a monetary gain, the complainant should have claimed a huge amount instead of Rs.3,000/- only.
9. In Malabar area, it is the usual practice of the trader to issue quotations instead of Bills in order to tax evasions.
10. Opposite party has not taken any steps to adduce evidence or file counter affidavit. While we are going through the proceeding sheet it can clearly seen that here are so many chances given to opposite party for filing counter affidavit. But unfortunately they are reluctant to obey that order. They have not taken any steps to cross-examine the complainant. The complainant have suffered a lot of mental agonies, financial loss and harassment at he hands of the opposite party for which the complainant deserve to be compensated in terms of money in the interest of justice. Opposite party had willfully evaded from the contractual obligations towards the complainant by stating false allegations. So this Forum finds that this is clear case of deficiency in service.
11. In the result, we order that the opposite party return and refund Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) being the price of the easy chair and shall pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation towards the mental agony and hardships he met to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2014.
sd/-
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
sd/-
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Quotation dated, 25-01-2013 for Rs.3,000/- by opposite party to complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
sd/-
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
sd/-
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
