Date of Filing             :    06  May, 2022.

Date of Judgement     :    19 April, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when the complainant, Smt. Minakshi Gupta, on behalf of the complainants above named, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, herein after called the said Act, against  Sri Debashis Debnath, proprietor of Shree Bishnu Furniture,  herein after called the Opposite Party or O. P.,  alleging supply of defective goods they purchased from the  Opposite Party.

            The brief statement of the complaint is that the complainants while intending to purchase a set of wooden dining table with 4 chairs came to know the name of the O. P. as a reputed furniture maker.  They contacted with the O. P. over telephone and expressed their intention for purchasing their desired furniture.  Then they went to the shop of the O. P. at Habra and discussed with the O. P. about the specification of their desired square dining table and 4 chairs for which the O. P. assured them about his ability to manufacture the furniture as per their given specification.  Having satisfied with the O. P.’s assurance they placed their order for which total consideration was fixed at Rs.35,200/- and it was agreed between the parties that the Segun/Teak wood and Greenply boards would be used to make the furniture along with 5 mm transparent glass top on the dining table.  The O. P. requested the complainants to pay at least 50% of the estimated value of the dining table set in advance so that the O. P. could manufacture the furniture and supply the same to the complainants’ residence within a very short time.  Relying upon the assurance of the O. P. the complainant no. 2 paid Rs.18,000/- through bank transfer at the O. P.’s bank account on 10/08/2020.  It was then decided that the O. P. would finish in making the furniture and deliver them on 20/08/2020 and he would provide the relevant Invoice for such purchase to the complainants.  It was also decided that the O. P. would send time to time the images of the furniture while under construction through WhatsApp message to the complainants but failed to do so. Even the O. P. failed to supply the dining table set within the stipulated time.  After several communications and requests, ultimately the O. P. was able to supply the dining set on 26/08/2020.  But the complainants astonishingly found that the complete set was not made as per their desired specification.  They found that low quality of wood and board were used in making them, even the glass top was scratched and unfinished colour polishing was found.  When these discrepancies were informed to the O.P., he assured the complainants to resolve their grievances.  But the O. P. failed to perform as per the promised works despite the complainant No. – 2  paid further Rs.15,500/- on 26/08/2020 at the O.P.’s bank account. The O.P. failed to provide the Invoice. After several communications and requests O.P. sent some labours, but the colour corrections were only made and Invoice was not provided. Within two months of use of the dining set they detected cracks in the chairs and in the table.  This time also the O.P. did not take any step to resolve the defects.  As their grievances were not resolved, complainants sent a legal notice through their Ld. Advocate to the O. P. on 16/11/2021 demanding to refund the entire paid amount of Rs.33,500/- which yielded no result.  Finally the complainants filed this instant complaint with the prayer to direct the O. P. to refund the paid amount of Rs.33,500/- along with 12% interest thereon by taking back the defective furniture and a compensation of Rs,5,000/- together with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and such other reliefs as this Commission may deem fit and proper.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) Bank statement showing payments to the O. P.’s bank account,  (ii) some colour photographs,  (iii) WhatsApp correspondences with the O. P. and (iv) legal notice sent on 16/11/2021 to the O. P. as annexure to the complaint petition.

            This Commission served notice after admission to the O. P. to appear and contest the case.  The O. P. appeared before this Commission through his Advocate and prayed to allow some time to file written version.  But the O. P. never appeared thereafter nor any written version is filed on his behalf.  Consequently, the case proceeded ex parte.  Complainants then filed their Affidavit-In-Chief and subsequently argument was heard.  Complainants filed their Brief Notes of Argument.

            We are now in a position to put forward the final decision on this case.  But before delivering decision on this case we have to consider the following questions:

            1.  Whether the complainants can be treated as Consumers in this case?

            2.  Whether the O. P. failed to deliver the goods as per the complainants’ desired  specification?  And,   

            3.  Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for?

            Let us take these points one by one to come to a final decision.

DICISIONS WITH REASONS

            1.   The complainants submitted copy of statement of bank account of the Complainant No. 2 lying with HDFC Bank having Account No. 00142470027921 from which it is seen that on 10/08/2020 an amount of Rs.18,000/- was transferred through NEFT to the O. P.’s bank account and another Rs.15,500/- was transferred to the O. P.’s bank account on 26/08/2020 through IMPS which clearly states that the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under Section 2(7)(i) of the C. P. Act, 2019.

            2.   On careful scrutiny of the documents annexed with the complaint we find that the above stated two transactions were made to “Habra Furniture Debasish For D Table Set” and “Habra Furniture Debasish - Final Payment for D Table” respectively.  The complainants stated the name of the shop of O.P. as ‘Shree Bishnu Furniture’, but the payments were made to ‘Habra Furniture’.  However O.P. has delivered one square dining table with glass top and 4 wooden chairs at the complainants’ residence which were later found defective. This proves that O.P. has accepted the amounts to deliver the dining set. Complainants alleged that the O. P. promised to make the furniture set with Green Ply Board and Segun/Teak wood and 5 mm glass top. Complainants have not filed any copy of agreement nor they have produced any receipt of the payments, except the bank statement, wherefrom we can find about the details materials to be used for the dining set.  However as the set got cracks and scratches as the days passed by, we can assume that low quality materials have been used for manufacturing these items.  Moreover, the colours used in the chairs and dining table have not been used uniformly, as the complainants alleged, which were corrected on 14/09/2020.  These ascertains that the O. P. has used unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act by delivering defective furniture set which got cracks during a very short of time of their use. It is alleged that the O. P. had promised to replace the scratched glass top and repair the defects found, but he never attended the residence of the complainants to redress their grievance except once for colour corrections only.  This proves that the O. P. was reluctant to cover up the defects developed due to use of low quality materials.  We see that the O. P. appeared before this Commission through his Ld. Advocate and prayed for some time to contest the case by filing his written version but did not participate in the case afterwards.  This clearly indicates that the O. P. has no reply to counter or rebut the allegation.  Hence, we finally come to the decision that the O. P. has delivered defective goods – the dining table and four chairs – to the complainants.

3.  So, considering the two points discussed above, we come to a decision that the O. P. supplied defective goods to the complainants for which the complainants are entitled to get relief.  The O. P. is liable to refund the paid amount of Rs.33,500/- to the complainants and thereafter shall take back the dining table set from the complainant’s residence.  The complainants are not eligible to get any compensation as they have used the set.  A litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- would be enough which should be paid by the O. P. to the complainant as they have to knock at the door of this Commission to get their grievance be redressed.

Hence, 

            it is

            ORDERED

             That the Complaint Case No. CC/263/2022 is allowed ex parte.

            The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.33,500/- paid by the complainants within 60 days from the date of this order.  After the total amount paid the O. P. should take back the 4-seater dining table set from the residence of the complainants at their own cost.  The O. P. is also directed to pay to complainants Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within the abovementioned time.