| 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) |
|
|
| ORDER | ORDER [Per Shri Jayant S. Prabhu, President] - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Opposite Party has filed his written version on 01/04/2014.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 | |
