Per se Hon’ble Member Smt. Jyoti Iyer
1. This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the Opponent Store alleging supply of substandard quality Dining Table, so also misrepresenting that the purchased dining table was imported and further that the said dining table with chairs was made of shisam wood and Italian Marble was used on Top, thereby being not only deficient in their service, so also guilty of practicing unfair trade practices. Hence the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant for holding the Opponent Store guilty of deficiency in service and for practicing unfair trade practices and further for directions to replace the said dining table in question with a original shisam dining table of Rs. 16,500/- either/or for refund of amount of Rs. 16,500/- after accepting the said dining table or give a dining table of an Indian make of Rs. 16,500/- , compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and for cost of litigation.
2. Factual Matrix:-
a) The Complainant on 19/6/2008 purchased imported Italian Marble dining table along with four chairs for Rs. 16,500/- from the Store called Wood Concept more particularly situate at the address mentioned in the cause title. hereinafter for the sake of brevity & convenience referred to as Opponent. A receipt was issued by the Opponent of the even date mentioning that the Complainant gave a old computer trolley which was estimated to Rs. 2,500/- . The said amount of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 500/- paid in cash as advance was deducted from the total cost of Rs. 16,500/-. Towards the balance amount of payment of Rs. 13,500/- a cross cheque bearing no. 147330 dtd. 19/6/2008 drawn by the Complainant on Saraswat Co.Op. Bank, Kalwa was handed over to the Opponent.
b) It is further contended by the Complainant that at the time of purchase on 19/6/2008 the concerned sales representative of the Opponent said that the entire dining table with chair is made up of Shisam wood and Italian Marble Top believing his said representations the Complainant decided to buy the said dining table. Some times in the month of September, 2008 after finishing his meals while sitting on the chair of the said table. The Complainant contends he had a serious fall on the floor as the said chair was fastened with only five nut bolts. The Complainant therefore suffered serious back injury and had to undergo medical treatment which costed him Rs. 2,000/-. The said matter was reported to the representatives of the Opponent and accordingly the representative of the Opponent sent their carpenter to repair the chair while carrying out the said repair, when the said table & chairs were turned upside down, it came to the notice of the Complainant that instead of Shisam Wood as represented ordinary Deodar Wood which is used for packing boxes was used. Hence the Complainant suspecting further foul play called a special carpenter and had the Dining Table & Chairs inspected. The said carpenter confirmed the doubts of the Complainant with respect to the dining table & chairs having being made of ordinary deodar wood. Report of the said carpenter, so also photographs of the said Dining Table & Chairs are filed on record.
c) The Complainant avers that the dining table & chairs are made of Deodar wood and the four legs each were made by joining four thin planks of about 3’ x 4” and four centimetre thickness each which was simply join by nut bolts so as to given impression that the legs were solid. In fact the four legs supporting the said table were hollow from inside and by no stretch of imagination would be able to withstand the marble italian top weighing about 20 to 25 kgs. The said top was framed with ordinary nut bolts hidden inside the frame thereby making the frame unsteady thereby unable to withstand the entire weight 35-40 kgs thereby ultimately resulting to loosen the entire dining table. Further even the marble which was represented as Imported Italian Marble turned out to be a lower quality flat Kota ladi which is Indian and thereafter polished to make it look like imported marble top. It is further contended by the Complainant that after taking into consideration the material used in the said dining table the estimated value would not be more than Rs. 5,000/- and that the material used was/is not imported but Indian Material was/is used, Hence made in India. The Complainant contend that the Opponent had cheated him to the tune of Rs. 11,500/- on learning the same, the Complainant met the proprietor of the Opponent and asked for replacement of said dining table with any Indian dining table or take back the dining table in question and refund the sum paid by him. The Opponent’s proprietor suggested that the Complainant on paying an additional sum of Rs. 8,000/- apart from Rs. 16,500/- already paid then they shall give a new dining table, however the Complainant fearing that he will further be fleeced of Rs. 24,500/- did not accept the aforementioned proposal and therefore requested the Opponent to refund the sum of Rs. 16500/- paid towards the said dining table in question. However, in vain. Thereafter the Complainant through his advocate addressed a legal notice dtd. 1/8/2009 to the Opponent which was though served was managed to be eventually sent back. Hence the Complainant was constrained to file this present complaint against the Opponent for Redressal of his grievances and for the reliefs aforementioned.
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by the Forum the Opponent appears to have not collected the envelope containing the notice etc. inspite of intimation dropped. Hence, the said envelope bearing an endorsement “unclaimed return to the sender” was received back by this Forum. The said sealed envelope bearing the said endorsement is on record. Thereafter the ld. Advocate for the Complainant has also sent a notice dtd. 4/8/2010 by UPC bringing the aforementioned refusal of summons by the Opponent and that the matter is likely to proceed Ex-parte. The UPC receipt dtd. 4/8/2010 is filed on record. Hence it can be presumed that the Opponent deliberately unclaimed the receipt of the notice of the Forum and further despite being in receipt of the notice as reflected from the RPAD acknowledgement filed on record neither appeared nor filed it’s W.S, before the Forum. Hence on 14th Feb. 2012 the Forum was passed to please an order for Ex-parte hearing.
4. We have perused the complaint and all the documentary evidence filed by the Complainant in support of his aforementioned contentions, so also the affidavit and W.A. filed by the Complainant. The Complainant and his Advocate were heard at length. After considering the submissions made by the Complainant and his advocate.
5. The issues which arise for our consideration are as follows:-
a. Whether the Opponent can be held guilty for deficiency in services and the adopting unfair trade practices? Answer is in affirmative for the reasons to follow.
b. If yes, whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him? As per order.
6. The Complainant has in support of his aforementioned contentions has filed the following documents:
i. Receipt dtd. 19/6/2008 issued by the Opponent’s representative for a sum of Rs. 13,500/- towards the purchase of imported Marble dining table.
ii. Notice dtd. 1/8/2009 addressed to the Opponent by the Complainant’s advocate.
iii. RPAD and UPC receipt.
iv. Return of notice sent to the Opponent by RPAD.
v. Photographs of dining table and chairs purchased for Opponent.
vi. Certificate dtd. 5/2/2011 issued by carpenter Shri Joginder Sharma in respect of the dining table in question.
7. Our findings, observations, reasons are as follows:
On perusal of the document at Sr.no.1 above it is clear that the Complainant has purchased Imported Marble dining table for Rs. 14,000/- it is also indicated in the said receipt that the old Computer trolley is returned, Rs. 500/- was paid by the Complainant as advance and Rs. 13,500/- by cross cheque bearing no. 147330 dtd. 19/6/2008 drawn on Saraswat Co.Op. Bank, Kalwa. It is pertinent to note that on careful perusal of the said receipt it is reflected that no guarantee on imported goods has been mentioned. In view of the contentions of the Complainant with respect to the said table being non imported as not rebutted hence the aforesaid guarantee would not be applicable to the instant case in hand. Though there is no mention of the amount paid by the Opponent towards the old Computer Trolley but since the contention raised by the Complainant is not rebutted by the Opponent and remains to be uncontroverted. Hence the contention of the Complainant will have to be held as correct and therefore sustainable with respect to the total cost of Rs 16,500/-after adjusting Rs. 2,500/- paid towards the Computer Trolley the Complainant & Rs.500/- advance paid to the Opponent. It is pertinent to note that the Opponent has unclaimed the notice issued by the Fora hence it can be deemed to have been refused by the Opponent., so also the notice sent by the advocate of the Complainant to the Opponent as contended by the Complainant appears to be managed and sent back as the said contention is not rebutted & stands uncontroverted. Further the contentions of the Complainant that low quality Deodar wood has been used instead of Shisam wood as represented and further misrepresentation that the said dining table and chairs are of an imported make though it turned out to be contrary when inspected by the special carpenter who has issued a certificate in respect of the said dining table made out of low quality Deodar wood and that the Marble used is not Italian speaks volume about the conduct of the Opponent. The Complainant further contends that the said marble is artificially created by the use of flat Kota Ladi within the wooden frame and filling the core part with cement and thereafter using gota polish on the entire surface so as to make the stone look like Italian Marble & the said dining table was not even made sturdy to withstand the weight of a human being, so also was not put together properly. It is also pertinent to note that the Complainant had time and again requested the Opponent to furnish proper final bill with proper sales tax details. However in vain. The said contention of the Complainant appears to be correct in view of the above referred receipt of the Opponent dtd. 19/6/2008 which is self explanatory. In our view the Opponent should issue proper final bill as it would by itself be termed as an unfair trade practice so also depriving the public exchequer of its revenue in the form of taxes etc. All the contentions raised by the Complainant are supported by documentary evidence which is not rebutted by the Opponent till date. Bearing in mind, the facts and circumstances of the instant case in hand, so also after appreciating all the documentary evidence on record we are of the well considered view that there is substantial force and truth in the contentions raised by the Complainant. We are of the well considered view that making false representations with respect to use of Shisam Wood, however substandard quality of wood used, misrepresenting the make and not assembled the said table etc in a proper manner the Opponent would be guilty of deficiency in services, so also unfair trade practice. It is pertinent to note that it is the contention of the Complainant that his fall resulted in injury and incurring of medical expenses to the tune of Rs .2000/-thereafter, though not rebutted. However, no documentary evidence with respect to the Medical expenses has been filed on record hence the same cannot be considered. We are further of the view that the entire approach and attitude of the Opponent appears to be against the norms of the trade and therefore to curtail the rampant approach adopted by the Opponent as in the instant case and for future. Deterrence is a must, so that no other customer has to face a similar situation ever. Further in our view it is the bounden duty cast upon the Opponent to represent the factual and actual position with respect to quality, make etc. to the customer as believing the said representations of the sales representatives of the stores/Opponent the customer/Complainant purchases the goods after paying valuable consideration towards the said purchase. It is also seen that now a days low quality goods made in India which are not assembled properly are represented as imported to induce customers to purchase them and the prices kept are very competitive and low so as to lure the customers. In view of the above discussion & bearing in mind the facts & circumstances of the instant case in hand & on appreciation of the above documentary evidence. We are of the well considered view that the Complainant should be refunded Rs. 16,500/- paid towards the said dining table in question, after returning the said dinning table in question to the Opponents. Further in our view the Opponents approach with respect to refusal to accept notice from the advocate of the Complainant and the Forum not only reflects the high handed approach of the Opponent, so also reflects that the Opponent have no respect for the rule of Law and consider themselves above the law of the land. Further we are of the view that the Complainant was constrained, so much so that he had to approach this Forum for Redressal of his grievances and further that the entire approach of the Opponent has caused immense mental agony, torture till date and he had to incur expenses for litigation for which the Complainant needs to be compensated to achieve the ends of justice. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
A. The Opponent is directed to refund Rs, 16,500/- paid by the Complainant towards the purchase of the said dining table at the same time the Complainant is directed to hand over the said dining table and chairs back to the Opponent.
B. The Opponent is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony etc. to the
Complainant.
C. The Opponent is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.
D. The Opponent is directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the receipt of the same.
E. Copies of this order to be furnished to the parties concerned free of cost.
Date: 30/05/2012.
