Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is moved by M/s Godrej Interio Stores & Anr. against the Order dated 10-04-2018, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/205/2017, by which the case has been decided in favour of the Respondent.

The dispute relates to alleged non-delivery of certain furniture items by the Appellants.

At the time of hearing both sides were heard at length and documents on record carefully gone through.

Admittedly, the Appellants have not supplied the ordered Sofa-cum-bed to the Respondent.  Appellants though held it’s another branch responsible for the goof up; it is, however, noteworthy that they have not furnished any documentary proof to support such contention.

Similarly, notwithstanding the AppellantS vehemently disputed the allegation of the Respondent about non-delivery of mirror along with the Wardrobe, no authentic copy of the concerned PoD (proof of delivery) has been placed before the Bench to verify the same.

It appears from the copy of the ‘Order Confirmation Form’ bearing No. 410509 that the ordered items were supposed to be delivered to the Respondent by the end of April, 2016.  If indeed the Appellants were not in a position to discharge their contractual obligations fully, they could suo motu approach the Respondent to take refund of the balance amount forthwith.  Allegedly, the Appellants offered to refund the balance amount in the month of July, 2016; that too, only after legal notice was served upon them by the Respondent.

It may not be out of place to mention here that from the copy of letter on record dated 26-05-2016, it transpires that the Respondent was eager to get refund by cheque at that time.  Had the Appellants acted with due alacrity then, surely, the Respondent could be spared of the ignominy of taking legal recourse punching a big hole in his pocket. Unfortunately, due to visible rigidity on the part of the Appellants, the Respondent is running from pillar to post for the last four years. As a consumer, the Respondent certainly did not deserve all these sufferings.

Finally, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants vehemently disputed the decreetal amount contending inter alia that the price of the Sofa-cum-Bed was only Rs. 22,176/-; whereas, the Ld. District Forum directed them to refund an amount of Rs. 48,000/- being the cost of disputed items.

In absence of copy of the Tax Invoice being issued by the Appellants to the Respondent, this Commission is left handicapped to figure out the exact amount of disputed items.  Though a copy of the Order Confirmation Form is filed on behalf of the Appellants, on due scrutiny of the same vis-à-vis payment details it is observed that as against payment of a total sum of Rs. 95,512/-, the aggregate amount of all items has been shown as Rs. 89,816/- by the Appellants in their Order Confirmation Form. The missing thread remains inexplicable.

Further, while the Appellants were duty bound to supply items as per agreed specification, deviation in any form to the same is not at all acceptable.  In absence of copy of the concerned PoD, the allegation of Respondent of supply of wardrobe sans mirror stands. Given that the wardrobe was not supplied as per the agreed specification, the Appellants are duty bound to refund the entire price of this item. However, in that case, the Appellants shall have the liberty to take back the supplied wardrobe from the place of the Respondent on ‘as is where is’ basis at their own costs and perils.

Considering all aspects, the order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any sort of infirmity.

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.