SRI. SAJEESH.K.P     : MEMBER

    The  Complainant has filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the  OPs  to refund of Rs.9000/- which was advance amount  paid to complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  and to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of proceedings   to the complainant.

     The complainant in brief

    The complainant in connection with his house warming on 10/4/2022 ordered wardrobe  combo worth Rs.12,990/- from 1^st OP shop and advance amount of Rs.6000/-  paid on the same day agreeing that balance amount will be paid on the date of delivery ie, 30/4/2022.  On 30/4/2022 the complainant approached OP to obtain  wardrobe, the former ordered a corner sofa with 3 seat and  OP requested more time as the sofa has to be customized.  The prize of  sofa is Rs.23900/- and advance amount of Rs.3000/- paid.  The OP says that he had paid Rs.9000/- towards advance  payment of both furniture .  On 19/5/2022, 20/5/2022, 26/5/2022, 27/5/2022, complainant called OP to deliver his furniture whch was not complied by OPs till the date of complaint.  The complainant constrained to rent a sofa  set on house warming day to  greet the guest.  The furniture which the complainant given advance amount to purchase was actually a  gift from his relatives.  Because of the non-compliance of promise of delivery of furniture before  house warming lead to  mental and monetary hardship to complainant.  The complainant approached  OPs to return the advance amount on which the  latter refused  to return the amount and told that they will deliver the furniture  as and when it is ready.  The complainant faced troubles due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by OPs and hence this complaint.

       After filing this  complaint, commission has sent notice to all OPs and  notice to OPs 1&3 returned with an endorsement as “unclaimed’  and hence OPs1&3 are declared as set exparte. The 2^nd  OP is entered appearance before the commission and filed their version.

Version of  2^nd  OP in brief:

    The OP admitted the order of furniture and payment of advance amount of Rs.9000/- in total.  The 1^st delivery date was changed by complainant themselves by stating that his relative is dead and on 30/4/2022 complainant ordered for another set of furniture  and on 23/5/2022, complainant told that they need the products on 26^th May 2022 on which OP expressed their helplessness to deliver the second product, in such a short period.  The OP intimate  the complainant  that the 1^st product  which is the Wardrobe was ready but the latter refund to take the same.  The manufacturing company  was not able to deliver the product on time due to the enormous  orders.  The product  was ready on 27/5/2022 and was intimated to complainant which he refused to accept.  Finally the OP promised to refund the advance amount.

   Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence for both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 & A2,  Ext.A1 is the estimate issued by 2^nd OP dtd.10/4/2022 and Ext.A2 is the estimate issued by 2^nd OP dtd.30/4/2022.  The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.  2^nd OP was not cross examined by complainant.  No oral and documentary evidence from the side of OPs.

Issue No.1&2:

   On the  perusal of documents  it is seen from Ext.A1 estimate dtd.10/4/2022 an amount of Rs.6000/- paid as advance  for Wardrobe combo and Ext.A2  estimate dtd.30//4/2022, an amount of Rs.3000/- towards corner sofa set paid to  OPs  is true.  The payment of advance amount of Rs.9000/-(Rs.6000+3000) is also  admitted by 2^nd OP.  As per the complaint the house warming date was fixed on 27/5/2022 and in the version of 2^nd OP  admitted their  helplessness to deliver the product on time.  The delay in service is considered as negligence in service and the complainant suffered hardship due to the delayed service from the part of OPs. Hence the complainant is entitled to get his advance amount and compensation.  Hence  issue No.1&2 are answered in favour of complainant.

        In the result complaint is allowed in part, the  opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.9000/- as advance amount and also to pay Rs.4000/- as  compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation  to the complainant  within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.9000/- carry  with 9% interest  per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1&A2-Estimate bill dtd.10/4/2022,30/4/2022

PW1-Gireesh Babu.P-complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR