CONSUMER CASE NO. 22 /2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that in the month of March’ 2021 Expo-Mela was held in the Town club play ground at Silchar. The complainant alongwith his wife and kids went to the said mela on 13/03/2021 and visited the shop counter of the opposite party ‘Karishma Furnitures’ and had placed order to purchase Arban marked sofa set brand with leather materials, colour green and off white shade, L pattern measuring 7 feet x 7 feet ( 2 side table, one centre table ) at the value of Rs.45,000/- ( Forty five thousand) and another item including two side table, wardrobe with 3 doors and one dressing table at the value of Rs.1,15,000/- . The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- in advance and the O.P. assured to supply the products immediately after closing of the Expo- Mela. In the mean time the surge of Covid-19 and its affects started all over the state including Cachar district. In such circumstances the O.P. started sending the furnitures on instalment basis to the flat of the complainant situated at Vivekananda road , Silchar in absence of the complainant. Through the security guard temporarily engaged in the flat the complainant received the products. After relaxation of Covid-19 on 23/10/2021 the complainant came in the aforesaid flat and on the same day opening the pack of the Sofa set described in the schedule of the complaint petition discovered that instead of leather materials poor quality of other materials were found to have been used in the sofa set and also the colour was different not choosen at the time of booking. Also the quality of the products were found to be poor compared to the products choosen at the time of booking. Thereafter the complainant asked the O.P. to replace the same. But the O.P. did not replace the same and as a result the complainant felt cheated and suffered mentally. Finding no other alternative the present case has been brought by the complainant praying for passing order directing the O.P. to take back the schedule sofa set and replace the same alongwith compensation of Rs. one lakh for mental harassment, disservice etc. and cost of the case.
The O.P. filed written statement stating, interalia, that there is no cause or justification of the present case, that the case is not maintainable, that the case is barred by limitation etc. The O.P. has denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The version of the O.P. is that on 13/03/2021 the complainant visited the store of the O.P. at the Expo- fair held in the Town club ground, Silchar and booked one sofa set and bedroom set which were ready to deliver. The price of the sofa set was fixed at Rs. 45,000/- and bedroom set was fixed at Rs. 1,15,000/- . That the bedroom set was delivered on 26/04/2021 and the sofa set was delivered on 27/04/2021 after due physical satisfaction of the complainant. But after about six months of the said delivery of goods the complainant on 23/10/2021 visited the shop house of the O.P. and asked for changing the sofa set as he was not satisfied with its colour and size. According to the O.P., after due physical verification of the sofa set as well as its colour and size the complainant purchased the same and the said sofa set was also delivered after getting his positive approval. The O.P. has further maintained that the complainant after purchase of the goods used it for about five to six months and thereafter made allegations regarding its colour and size. Under the circumstances, it is stated that the complainant can not get any relief in the case and the case is liable to be dismissed .
In support of the case the complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1. Evidence on affidavit of another witness Soma Deb Roy has also been submitted as PW-2. Both PW-1 & PW-2 have been cross-examined. From the side of O.P. evidence on affidavit of Sri Ronok Kanoi has been submitted as DW-1. Both sides also exhibited some documents. Both the parties submitted written argument in the case. In addition respective learned counsels of the parties put forward oral argument. We have perused the entire evidence on record including the written argument.
On perusal of the evidence of both sides it has come out as an admitted fact that on 13/03/2021 at Expo-fair held in the Town Club ground, Silchar PW-1 , the complainant, visited the shop counter of the O.P. Karisma furniture and booked one sofa set at the price of Rs.45,000/- and one bedroom set at the price of Rs. 1,15,000/- and subsequently delivery of both the items were made. As reveals from the case record there is no dispute in respect of the bedroom set supplied by the O.P. The matter in dispute in this case is in respect of the sofa set supplied by the O.P. PW-1 has claimed that the sofa set supplied by the O.P. is not as per his order. The colour is different from the colour choosen at the time of booking, even the products were found to be of poor quality compared to the product choosen at the time of booking. But DW-1 in his evidence has denied the allegations made by the complainant side. According to DW-1, the alleged sofa set was delivered after due physical verification of the said sofa set by the complainant. Even after getting positive approval of the complainant the goods were delivered.
The evidence of DW-1 further goes to show that after about six months of the delivery of the sofa set the complainant raised objection against the sofa set and demanded for change of the sofa set. Further statement of DW-1 is that the complainant after purchase of the goods used it for about five to six months and thereafter made allegations. Though the PW-1 has denied the allegations that he used the said sofa set about five to six months before raising objection but it is not disputed in the case that the complainant raised allegations in respect of the alleged sofa set after about five to six months from its delivery. PW-1 has claimed that at the time of delivery of goods he was not in his flat situated at Vivekanda Road, Silchar and the articles were received by the security guards temporarily engaged in his flat. But this fact has not been proved in the case. The complainant also has not examined in the case the concerned security guards who received the articles as claimed by the complainant. There is also no convincing evidence from the side of the complainant to prove the fact that he unpacked the sofa set after about five to six months of its delivery. Both PW-1 & PW-2 are most interested witnesses in this case. The complainant side has not examined any other resident of the said apartment or its security guard to prove the fact that during the period from May’ 2021 to October’ 2021 they were not present in their flat where the articles were delivered.
From the above discussions of the evidence on record we find and hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case and accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief in the case. As such the case stands dismissed on contest. No costs.
The judgment is delivered on this 26th day of july’ 2023 with our seal and signature.
