Per Hon’ble Member Partha Kumar Basu
This complaint case is in respect of a dispute regarding purchase of some household furniture. The prayer of the complainant is for a direction upon the OP to refund the cost of the furniture alongwith interest and compensation for suffering from mental pain and agony and litigation cost.
The case of the complainant in gist as averred is that he paid Rs. 17,945.50/- by HDFC credit card as total consideration money against purchase of 1 no. Sofa set through an online platform of www.furny.in on 03.01.2024. But it is alleged that a completely different goods was supplied by the seller on 10.01.2024. It is the case of the complainant that while a light grey coloured sofa with yellow white and black printed cushions were ordered but a dark grey sofa with green printed cushions was supplied.
Further, as per the complaint petition, while the listed price was displayed in the seller’s website as Rs 18,890/- less Rs. 944.50/- as discount with a landed cost of Rs. 17,945.50/- but the OP charged with an invoice price of Rs 15.959/- and no refund was given. Inspite of repeated efforts of the complainant through various modes the OP remained silent in replacing the sold item. The consumer also filed complain at National Consumer Helpline on 03.03.2024 who advised to file complaint before the consumer court.
A legal notice dated 19.04.2024 was sent by the complainant to the OP company which was delivered to the OP on 23.04.2024 and subsequently one representative of the OP company visited the complainant on 24.04.2024. But as the complainant was not available at that point of time hence it was requested to come back with advance intimation. Thereafter another call came to complainant sending some fabric images to choose from a different set of sofa, although the same ordered sofa was getting displayed at that point of time website as available in the seller’s website.
The OP thereafter stopped all contacts with the complainant and started harassing the complainant by deferring the delivery date of the sold products and ultimately never replaced the goods.
Hence the case.
The complaint filed this complainant case for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OP.
The service return was duly completed for the OP on 06.06.2024. But no W/V was filed by OP nor did they appear. Hence the case proceeded on ex-parte basis as per order no. 4 dated 22.07.2024 of this Commission.
The final argument was heard on merit on 22.11.2024 read with all records and documents and exhibits, when argument was advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant. The OP did not turn up in final hearing or taken any step. Hence the complaint case was heard ex-parte, based on merit.
The main points for determination of this case are that:-
- Whether the complaint is coming under the scopes of CP Act or not ?
- Whether the complaint of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of OP is established or not
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for or not.
The decisions with reasons on all the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is found that the OP has issued a tax invoice dated 05.01.2024 for Rs. 15,959.50/- including IGST for aforesaid goods. From the credit statement exhibited by the complainant it is appears that Rs. 17,945.50/- by HDFC credit card was paid by the complainant’s card as total consideration money against purchase of 1 no. Sofa set through an online platform of www.furny.in on 03.01.2024 to the OP company for purchase of goods. Hence the Complainant is a Consumer under the scopes and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 falling under the pecuniary and geographical jurisdiction of this forum as per value of gods and complainant’s address.
From the complaint petition it appears that the complainant paid for purchasing the furniture items in full. But no specimen sample or excerpt from the seller’s website about the goods ordered was exhibited by the complainant. Moreover, while the complainant is alleging about variation in colour of the fabric of the goods, the complainant itself exhibited a black and white print out of the supplied items and also not exhibited any sample of ordered item. As such this commission is not in a position to determine any deviation in want of cogent document as evidence. Colour is a sensory perception rather than a physical property and no two people experience colour in the same way which is a result of an interaction between a light source, an object and an observer. Therefore without a reference or a sample as yardstick, the commission is unable to determine the actual. Mere statement in a complaint petition does not carry much evidentiary value unless supported by documents or exhibits in this type of complaint cases on sale of goods when the point of consideration is the specification of the items. It is a cardinal principle that the onus and burden of citing proof in support of the contention lies on the petitioner.
Hence the exhibits do not adequately substantiate the allegations that the complainant was delivered an incorrect product by OP company. Neither there is any such reflection of any deviation in the specification in the invoice or otherwise. The whatsup conversation or some printout of furniture do not carry any impeccable evidentiary value in support of the complaint.
As the Complainant has failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service from the end of the OP through any cogent evidence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought for.
Going by the foregoing discussions, hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no. CC / 88 / 2024 could not be established and hereby dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this Final order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR.
The Registrar of this commission is directed to arrange uploading of this order at once at www.confonet.nic.in
