Punjab

Sangrur

CC/3/2022

Ashok Kumar Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saraf Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.C. Sharma

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 03

 Instituted on:   03.01.2022

                                                                         Decided on:     20.07.2022

 

Ashok Kumar Bansal @ Ashok Bansal son of Sh. Vidya Sagar Bansal, Resident of Chaudhary Brij Lal Street, Sangrur 148001.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Saraf Furniture, RIICO Industrial Area, Kalyanpur Road, Sardarshahar 331403 Rajasthan through Authorized Representative.

             ….Opposite party. 

For the complainant    : Shri K.C.Sharma, Adv..               

For  OP                        : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

                                                    FINAL ORDER

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant purchased/ordered one sheesam wooden chair  to the OP by paying a sum of Rs.12,449/- which was delivered vide invoice number SFN7172133-19206 dated 18.09.2020 shipped via Delhivery in two packets.  It is further averred that when the complainant opened the packet, it was found that the product is sub standard and the chair is not made of sheesam and is very light in weight and the legs of chair are neither stable nor the quality of polish is good. It is further averred that the cushion cloth is also of very cheap quality, as such the complainant sent email to the OP on 23.09.2020 and apprised about the substandard and defective material of the chair, which was acknowledged by the OP on 25.09.2020.  Thereafter the complainant again sent email on 27.09.2020 alongwith the photographs of the chair, the email was duly acknowledged by the OP and apologized for the inconvenience and promised to put the matter to the senior team, but to the utter surprise of complainant the OP sent email on 30.09.2020 mentioning therein that the product is of standard quality. The OP remained stick to the stand in email dated 2.10.2020 and 7.10.2020.  Further case of complainant is that though the complainant requested the OP a number of times to replace it with a new one or to refund its price, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund the price of chair i.e. Rs.12,449/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and further to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and  harassment and further to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that OP did not put appearance despite valid service, as such, OP was proceeded against exparte.

3.             In support of the case, the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of emails, Ex.C-8 is copy of courier receipt and Ex.C-9 is affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-10 is copy of literature of OP and Ex.C-11 is expert report of Gurmeet Singh, wherein he has stated that the chair if not made of sheesam rather the same is of poor quality wood. Ex.C-12 is affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, expert wherein he has stated that he has more than twenty years of experience in manufacturing furniture and stated that the chair is not made of sheesam and is of very poor quality.

4.             Record shows that OP was proceeded against exparte and did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence of complainant.

5.             We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record on file. 

6.             In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit, Ex.C-9 in which he has clearly stated that the complainant purchased the chair in question, which is of defective quality and when approached nothing was done by the OP to replace it with a new one.  Ex.C-1 is the copy of invoice showing purchase of solid wood bar chair by the complainant for Rs.12,449/- and Ex.C-13 further shows that the payment of Rs.12,449/- was made by the complainant to the OP through his credit car of IndusInd Bank. Further Ex.C-2 is the copy of email sent to the OP on 23.09.2020 which clearly shows that the complainant sent an email stating that the chair in question is very light in weight, it is not stable and is not made of sheesam wood and the quality of polish is very poor. The OP chose to remain exparte despite its valid service.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why the OP did not replace the chair in question which was defective one as alleged in the complaint which allegation is also supported by the report Ex.C-11 and affidavit Ex.C-12 of Shri Gurmeet Singh.  Thus, the complainant has successfully proved his case by producing cogent and reliable evidence, which is not rebutted by the OP, as the OP failed to appear before this Commission as such we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

7.             As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant the price of chair i.e. Rs.12,449/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of payment till its realization in full. Further, the opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and further an amount of Rs.2000/-  as litigation expenses. Further it is made clear that the complainant shall return the defective chair to the OP at the time of taking the refund of the amount as ordered above.

8.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9.             Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                July 20, 2022.