O R D E R
By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :
The complainant’s case in brief. The complainant purchased a dining table as well as 6 chairs from the opposite party on 14/07/14 branded by name Fiesta. The complainant paid Rs.13,596/- as the prize of the table. But it caused damage within a period of 6 months and the same was informed to the 1st opposite party. The staff from the opposite party had come to his house and rectified the defects and later the very same complaint continued and the table became useless. The glass top of the table detached from its stand and it was again fixed with glue and after 2 months the same complaint aroused on 18/01/11. The 1st opposite party sent workers to complainant’s resident to rectify the same but they informed that the defect could not be rectified any further more because it is a manufacturing defect. Even though the opposite parties were not amenable hence this complaint is filed. Finally the complainant caused a lawyer notice for Rs.32,000/- with 12% interest as the cost of the table and chairs and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony sustained by the complainant. The complainant impleaded 2nd & 3rd opposite parties also. The 2nd opposite party is the All Kerala Dealer of the Fiesta branded furniture and the 3rd opposite party is the head office of the company.
2) On receiving complaint, Commission issued notice served upon the opposite parties. Subsequently opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed detailed version denying the averments made in the complaint. 2nd & 3rd opposite parties call absent and set ex-parte. 1st opposite party, in their version contented that they are having name and reputation in the field of furniture. They are selling high quality and good standard products to its customers. They have not made any chance for any complaint from their customers till this time. Further contented that the complaint is not maintainable since it is a time barred one. It is for the first time only in the year 2011 when it is reported with the opposite party regarding the detachment of the glass with the table from its stand. They have sent service person to the residence of the complainant to rectify the same and the same defect was rectified then and there. The defect of the table was caused due to the rough and careless use of the table by the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any amount from the 1st opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed.
3) The points for consideration are
a) whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite
parties ?
b) If so reliefs and costs ?
4) Then the case was posted for evidence. From the side of the complainant, he filed detailed proof affidavit in which he affirmed and explained all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced by him were marked as P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the Bill dtd. 14/07/07 for an amount of Rs.52,425/-; Ext. P2 is the Lawyer Notice dtd. 09/12/11; Ext. P3 is the Postal Receipt and Ext. P4 is the A/D card. The report filed by the Expert Commissioner taken out by the complainant is marked as Ext. C1. The opposite party also filed detailed counter proof affidavit in tune with the contentions raised in the version. There was no oral testimony or documents from his side.
5) On going through the contentions of the proof affidavit and perusing the documents it can be seen that the complainant has no case regarding any defect for the six chairs purchased along with the table. It is admitted fact that the 1st opposite party employees visited the residence of the complainant for rectifying the defects of the table as alleged in the complaint after six months of the purchase of the table. The opposite party also admitted that there was defect on the table and it was rectified. That itself shows that the table was defective. The Expert Commissioner also in his report categorically stated that due to the defect of the designing the glass of the table cannot be fixed intact and there is no chance for rough use in the case of table. “ഡിസൈനിംഗിലെ അപാകതയാണ് ഗ്ലാസ് ഇളകാന് കാരണം. ആദ്യം ചെയ്യുന്നത് ഡിസൈനിംഗ് ആണ് പിന്നീട് നിര്മ്മാണവും. ഡൈനിംഗ് ടേബില് സ്റ്റെയിന്ലെസ് സ്റ്റീലില് നിര്മ്മിച്ചതാണ്”. Such a statement is enough to show that the table was having manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and is not fit for continuous use. And there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to adduce any contra evidence to the allegation raised by the complainant.
6) The defect alleged for the chairs are negligible. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get back the table of the same type without any defect to his satisfaction. We are inclined to give a verdict infavour of the complainant.
In the result the opposite parties are directed to replace the table with good quality to the satisfaction of the complainant in the same size and prize as he has purchased, within one month from receiving copy of this order. If failed the complainant is entitled for Rs.13,596/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand five hundred and ninety six only) along with interest of 12% from the date of purchase of the table. The complainant is also deserved Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost for this complaint. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall be liable for the entire amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 27th day of February 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 Bill dtd. 14/07/07 for an amount of Rs.52,425/-
Ext. P2 Lawyer Notice dtd. 09/12/11
Ext. P3 Postal Receipt
Ext. P4 A/D card.
Complainant’s Witness :
PW 1 Samuel Thomas
Ext. C1 Expert Commissioner Report
Id/- President
