Delhi

East Delhi

CC/71/2019

YASH VARDHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHARMA FURNITURE - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 71/19

 

Shri Yash Vardhan

S/o Shjri Dilip Kumar Rateria

R/o A-53, 3^rd Floor, Pandav Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.    

M/s. Sharma Furniture

Shop NO. 1, A-95

Pandav Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                             …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 21.02.2019

Judgement Reserved on: 12.09.2019

Judgement Passed on: 16.09.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Yash Vardhan against        M/s. Sharma Furniture (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on 18.11.2018, the complainant purchased a wooden almirah from M/s. Sharma Furniture (OP) by paying an amount of Rs. 4,500/- in cash.  OP assured the complainant that bill for the said almirah would be sent with almirah.   OP asked the complainant to pay     Rs. 150/- as delivery charges, which was paid by him. 

            It was stated that on the same day, when the almirah was delivered at his residence, he was shocked to see that the almirah was different, much small and inferior one than the purchased one.  Delivered almirah was of 12” depth while complainant had purchased almirah with 18” depth.  Even, no bill was received by the complainant at the time of delivery of almirah.  The complainant immediately contacted OP, but OP disconnected the phone saying that battery of his phone was low.  On 19.11.2018, when the complainant called OP, they told that the delivered product was the same product which the complainant had purchased.  After arguments, OP agreed to change the almirah and ought one week time.

            It was further stated that on 01.12.2018, OP sent another wooden almirah.  The complainant was shocked to see that there was a hole in the door of the second almirah.  It was also found with broken lock.  Complainant refused to get the delivery of the said almirah.  Hence, the complainant requested for refund of Rs. 4,500/- and get the delivered almirah returned.  It was told by OP that after two weeks, the refund will be made, but all in vain. 

            Aggrieved by the behavior of OP, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.12.2018 which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the cost of almirah i.e. Rs. 4,500/- with delivery charges of Rs. 150/-; compensation of           Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.   He also requested for directions to OP to get the possession of delivered almirah from the house of the complainant using his own means.            

3.         Notice issued to OP returned back with the report “Refused”.  As OP refused to receive the notice and not appeared, they were proceeded   ex-parte.

4.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited photograph of the delivered almirah (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of whatsapp messages between the complainant and OP (Ex.CW-1/2), photograph of second almirah (Ex.CW-1/3) and copy of legal notice alongwith tracking report (Ex.CW-1/4).

5.         We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the documents placed on record, it is evident that OP have sent the different almirah than the ordered one.  By sending the second almirah which was not accepted by the complainant due to the hole in the door, it comes out that the almirah which was ordered by the complainant was not the same which was sent in exchange.  Even, the testimony of the complainant have gone un-rebutted.  Thus, from the testimony of the complainant and the documents placed on record, it comes out that there has been deficiency on the part of OP.  By supplying the defective furniture/almirah, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony for which he has to be compensated also. 

In view of the above, we order that complainant be paid an amount of Rs. 4,500/- being the cost of almirah and compensation of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental pain and agony which includes the cost of litigation.  This amount be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of order.  If not paid, total amount of Rs. 7,500/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.    

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

              Member                                                                          President