: FINAL ORDER :
DATE OF FILING: 24.11. 2016
ORDER No. 09
DATE. 06.03.2017
Shri Shyamal Kumar Ghsoh - Member
The brief fact of the case is that due to marriage ceremony of the daughter of the complainant, the complainant has booked one dressing table on 16.01.16 by paying an advance of Rs. 1100/- out of total cost price of Rs. 6500/- and to that effect the OP assured the complainant to deliver the said article on or within 04.03.2016. On the said date i.e., on 04.03.2016 the complainant went to the shop of the OP for taking the delivery of the said dressing table but it was found that the article was not ready for delivery. Finding no other alternative the complainant purchased the said article i.e., dressing table from another shop by paying of Rs. 9,000/- on 08.03.2016. The complainant suffered mental pain and agony due to non-supply of said article for his daughter’s marriage. The cause of action arose on and from 16.01.2016 when the OP accepted the amount of advance money of Rs. 100/- and again on 18.01.2016 the OP also accepted Rs. 1000/- i.e., total of Rs. 1100/- out of total consideration amount of Rs. 6050/-. Till today the OP did not refund the advance amount of Rs. 1100/- to the complainant. So no other alternative for getting proper relief the complainant has knocked at the door of the Forum and prays for refund of Rs. 1100/-, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also for litigation cost.
The OP Sri Tarak Nath Das, proprietor of Modern Tech Iron Furniture has contested this case by filing WV stating, inter alia, that the complainant placed the order for supplying a dressing table and he also paid him (OP) Rs. 1100/- as advance. The OP agreed to deliver the said article on 04.03.2016 to the complainant. But on 04.03.2016 the OP found some damages as the said article has been delivered to his shop through transport. For this the OP requested for extra two days for complete and satisfactory delivery of the said article to the complainant but the complainant did not provide any opportunity to him to deliver the same, rather the complainant insulted the OP. But after expiry of four days from 04.03.2016 the complainant intentionally purchased one dressing table from another shop. The OP tried to contact with the complainant for refund of Rs. 1100/- but the complainant has failed to provide proper response. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP, so the petition / case is liable to be rejected with cost.
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written version, written arguments along with all documents filed by the parties. Now this Forum is to consider the following points.
POINTS FOR DECISION
No. 1: Whether this complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
No. 2: Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP?
No. 3: Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for or not?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1: We have carefully perused Annexure – 1 & Annexure – 2 wherefrom it is clear that the complainant has paid to OP Rs. 1100/- towards advance out of total price of the dressing table of Rs. 6500/-. From the said document it is very much clear that the OP has agreed to deliver the said article on 04.03.2016. Annexure – 2, clearly speaks for the design of said dressing table. The OP also received Rs. 1100/- as advance money from the complainant. So as per status between the both parties the complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the point No. 1 is decided accordingly.
Point Nos. 2 & 3:
It is admitted fact that the complainant Shyamal Chattopadhyay purchased a dressing table amounting to Rs. 9000/- on 08.03.2016 from Unique Steel Furniture situated at Kalyani, Nadia. From the four corners of the record and from the documents we find that the OP tried to deliver the defect free dressing table to the complainant as the alleged dressing table was damaged during the period of transportation and for this, the OP prayed for two day’s extra time from the complainant to deliver the dressing table before his daughter’s marriage but the complainant gave OP no such opportunity. So it is clear that the OP was very much eager to deliver the defect free dressing table to the complainant on 06.03.2016 i.e., well before daughter’s marriage of complainant, but unfortunately, the complainant did not provide the said opportunity to the OP. Rather, the complainant purchased the same type of dressing table from Unique Steel Furniture situated at Kalyani, Nadia on 08.03.2016 on payment of Rs. 9000/-. From this situation it is clear that if the opportunity was given to the OP as he prayed, then the OP could deliver the dressing table to the complainant on 06.03.2016 i.e., four days before marriage of his daughter as date of marriage was fixed on 10.03.2016.
Under the above facts and circumstances it is our view that the opportunity of two days regarding delivery of the said dressing table should be given to the OP by the complainant, but it is very much unfortunate that the complainant did not provide the said opportunity to the OP. Furthermore, the OP was very much eager either to deliver the goods or the advance money to the complainant but he did not get any positive reply from the complainant and the reason is best known to the complainant. The Consumer Forum is not a place wherein a party can wrongfully gain. From our above discussion we can safely come to the conclusion that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged. So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. Point Nos. 2 & 3 are decided. All points are decided.
In result the case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
That the CC/2016/122 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP but without cost. The OP is requested to return back advance money (Rs. 1100/-) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.
Let a plain copy of this final order be supplied to the parties / their Ld. Advocates / agents forthwith free of cost or send by ordinary post.
