Tripura

West Tripura

CC/63/2015

Dr. Manik Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Nabin Furniture. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.K. Ghosh

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   63  of   2015

Dr. Manik Saha,
Masjid Road, Agartala,
West Tripura.                          ...........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___
     
Proprietor of Nabin Furniture,
Joynagar,(Near J.P.C. Club),
Battala, Agartala, 
West Tripura.                  .........Opposite party.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Sri Prabal Kr. Ghosh,
                       Sri Rakesh Ch. Deb,
                       Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties        :  Sri Koushik Dutta,
                       Advocates.                                       
          
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  30.03.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Dr. Manik Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant's case in short is that he purchased one Bolvia Bed of Zuari from Nabin Furniture owned by O.P. on 23.12.14. But at the time of fitting it is found that the leg portion of the bed was broken. At the time of purchase cash memo not given. Subsequently on demand it was given. But its price written Rs.20,610/- though he paid Rs.24,000/-. Subsequently, another cash memo issued and there it was written Rs.23,014/-. Petitioner requested the O.P. to repair the Bolvia bed but his request was turned down. So, he filed the case for compensation in respect of deficiency of service of O.P. 

        Opposite party, proprietor of Nabin furniture  appeared, filed W/S . It is contended that cash memo was issued for single transaction. No communication was made about any defect of the khat. It was informed to the complainant by the staff that due to mishandling the product had been damaged and it was non-functioning. 

        On the basis of rival contention following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether a defective khat was supplied to the petitioner?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service and also replacement? 

        Petitioner side produced the original invoice cash memo (2 nos.), original challan, letter, photocopy of course of deference of Bolvia bed which are marked as Exhibit 1 series.
        Petitioner side also examined one witness i.e., the petitioner, Dr. Manik Saha.

        O.P. on the other hand examined one witness, Mintulal Saha, Proprietor of Nabin Furniture.

        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

        Findings:

        It is admitted fact that the petitioner, Dr. Manik Saha purchased the Zuari bed from the shop of O.P. O.P. admitted that cash memo of Nabin furniture was issued by him. From the documents produced Exhibit- 1 series it is found that 2 cash memos were issued by Nabin furniture. In one cash memo the price of Bolvia bed is written Rs.20,610/-. It was issued on 23.12.14. On 13.01.15 another cash memo issued by Nabin furniture and its price was written Rs.23,014/-. In the challan again its price written as Rs.24,000/-. O.P. could not explain why this 3 types of vouchers was issued in respect of same furniture. It is also admitted that warranty card was not supplied by O.P. to the petitioner. O.P. in the written statement stated that due to mishandling the bed was damaged and it was not repairable. Who mishandled it and when not clarified. Petitioner alleged that at the time of fixing by the staff of the O.P. such defects were noticed. The staff of the opposite party failed to fix it properly and left it in the house of the petitioner. The product has a warranty and in case of such defect it is subject to repair and if not possible replacement is required. Why the warranty of Bolvia bed was not supplied not clarified by O.P. O.P. failed to prove that the bed was properly fixed in the house of the petitioner and the petitioner mishandled it. The question of mishandling does not come at all when the fixing of Bolvia bed not proved by convincing evidence. O.P. issued 3 types of vouchers showing the price of Bolvia bed. Actual price list and other papers of Bolvia bed was not supplied. From the evidence it is clear that the O.P. being the seller did not properly serve at the time of sale of this product. He was supposed to disclose advantage and disadvantage of the product at the time of sale. He is also to disclose the quality of the product. All these things were not done by him.

        This in our view appears to be unfair trade practice. It is also deficiency of service by the O.P. being seller of the product he did not serve properly and was doing unfair trade. It is established from the evidence that defective Bolvia bed was supplied by O.P., Mintulal Saha to Dr. Manik Saha. It is established that O.P. for his deficiency of service and unfair trade practice is under liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. Both the points are decided accordingly.

        The quantum of compensation is to decided on the basis of act of the O.P. who did unfair trade practice while selling the Bolvia bed. We are of the considered view that the O.P. is under obligation to replace the Bolvia bed by new one and fix it properly and supply the warranty card to the petitioner. We also decide that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as compensation from the O.P. 
        We therefore, direct the O.P. to replace the Bolvia bed by a new one after taking back the defective bed, supply the warranty card fix the new bed in the house of the petitioner to his satisfaction and also pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner in addition as compensation. In case of his failure to replace the Bolvia bed he will have to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. The amount is to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 2 months, in case of failure it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. Supply copy of the judgment.

                     Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
WEST TRIPURA.