Goa

South Goa

CC/11/2014

Thomas Oliveira & another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjay Enterprises(Margao) - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,SOUTH GOA
MARGAO-GOA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/2014
 
1. Thomas Oliveira & another
H. No. 231, Surebhat, St. Jose De Arial, Salcete Goa
2. Sebestiao Oliveira
H. No. 231, Surebhat, St. Jose De Arial, Salcete Goa
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sanjay Enterprises(Margao)
Near Railway Over Bridge, Ravanfond, Power House Road, Margao Goa
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jayant Prabhu PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Savita G. Kurtarkar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Cynthia Colaco MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Complainant in person
 
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

 

ORDER

                                                                                             [Per Shri Jayant S. Prabhu, President]

  1. The case of the complainants in brief is that he purchased one imported  MMT 102 Model No. 602,  4 band glass top dinning  table  on 18/09/2013 from the Opposite Party’s showroom at Rawanfond, Margao Goa.  The Complainants paid a sum of Rs.9,950/- and took delivery of the same.  According to the Complainants on  10/01/2014  one of the poles of the dinning table from the glass top got dislodged  from the glass table.  Immediately, the said fact was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party by the Complainants who assured the Complainants to get it fixed as soon as possible.   Knowing the risk involved the Complainants repeatedly informed the Opposite Party who kept on assuring the Complainants of  getting it fixed.  On 12-01-2014, ultimately, the table top broke which was thereafter immediately reported to the Opposite Party.

 

  1. According to the Complainants, as the Opposite Party inspite of  informing refused to fix the table top, it got damaged due to the negligence of the Opposite Party,  and also due to the supply of defective material to the Complainants by the Opposite Party, the glass table top the dinning table got damaged. 

 

  1. Ultimately the Complainant prays for a sum of Rs.9,250/- as refund towards the cost paid by the Complainants  for  the glass top dinning table so also for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainants, and his family members and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost.

 

  1. In support of their case the Complainants have  relied upon the tax invoice showing the payments made and  two photographs of the fallen dinning table.

 

  1. The Opposite Party has filed his written version on 01/04/2014.

 

  1. As per the written version, they admit that the glass top dinning table was purchased by the Complainants from the Opposite Party so also the Opposite Party admits that they had received a telephone call about one of the poles of the table getting dislodged.  According to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had informed the Complainant to get the same to the shop at Ravanfond to get it fixed with laser fitting. However, as the Complainant failed to get it to the shop of the Opposite Party, the table top got damaged due to the negligent handing by the Complainant.  The Opposite Party also submit that as there was shortage of man power,  no personnel from his shop could be sent to the residence of the Complainant. 

 

  1. The Opposite Party also submits that as the said dinning table was an  imported  good it did not carry any warranty or guarantee and as such the Opposite Party is not responsible for the replacement of the dinning table.

 

  1. Now coming to the merits of the complaint,  we find that the dining table sold by the Opposite Party on 18-09-2013 got damaged on 10-01-2014 i.e. within a period of 4 months.  When a person purchases  furniture it is expected that it would give service and to be in normal condition for atleast 2-3 years.  In the present case, admittedly the pole of the dinning table got dislodged within a period of four months.  Hence, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to send his personnel to lift the said dinning table from the house of the Complainants within the shortest possible time, fix it, repair the damaged part and give it back to the Complainant. 

 

  1. Excuses like  the Opposite Party had  shortage of man power cannot be accepted.  It was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to get the damaged part fixed as he has collected hefty amount of Rs.9,250/- from the Complainant. 

 

  1. Although the Opposite Party submit that they had neither guarantee nor warranty for the said goods, we find no reason  to listen to the excuse simply because the dinning table got dislodged within a period of four months.

 

  1. We therefore are of the opinion that the goods supplied are defective and therefore, the Complainants require to be compensated for the loss they suffered.

 

  1. Accordingly, the  complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is  directed to refund the said amount of Rs.9,250/- to the Complainants  alongwith interest at 9% from the date of purchase i.e. 18-09-2013 till its realization.  A sum of Rs.1,000/- shall also be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainants towards the cost of the present complaint.    Once the afore said amount is  paid the Complainants shall return  back the table on as and  where basis.

 

[Mr. Jayant S. Prabhu]

         President

 

 

[Ms. Savita G. Kurtarkar]

                Member

 

   [Ms. Cynthia Colaco]

                  Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jayant Prabhu]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. Savita G. Kurtarkar]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Cynthia Colaco]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.