Date of Filing : 20/11/2018
Date of Judgement : 23/09/2024
Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member
The Fact of case is that complainant has purchased a Sofa Cum Bed for her personal use from the Opposite Party which was valued for Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand) only plus installation charges of Rs.1,100/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred) only on 14.12.2017 being S.L. No.1507 for the same.
That Complainant has paid the said amount of Rs. 27,000/- at the time of delivery and also paid Rs. 1,100/- for the installation charges.
That at the time of purchase of the Sofa Cum Bed OP assured your complainant that all the responsibilities regarding the product and quality will be devolve upon the OP.
That on 16.01.2018 when your complainant intends to use the said Sofa Cum Bed noticed that the products has not been properly functioning and then noticed some manufacturing defect. Then complainant approached to the OP/manufacturer over the phone several dates for replace the product but OP didn’t pay any heed to it and also didn’t take care for the same despite several intimation through whatsapp and phone calls
Thereafter the OP and describe the entire problem and OP assured complainant to repair the product, but no repair work was done by the OP, not only that the OP intentionally did such activities and neglected to repair the same
The complainant finding no other alternative served a Demand Notice through her Lawyer Sri Anjan Ghatak of Alipore Judge’s Court on 25.07.2018 and same was delivered on 27.07.2018 but no reply was made by the opposite party. Hence, this application is made before your this commission for redressed as per law to get remedy .
The complainant prays for Compensation of Rs 80,000/-( Rupees Eighty Thousand) only for harassment and Mental agony and cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only as Petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
The opposite party entered appearance in the case and contested the case by filing written version denied the charges which has been level against the op by the complainant in her petition is partially true. When the petitioner approached to opposite party for repairing the Sofa Cum Bed, initially opposite party failed to send the person to attend the problem to resolve the issue with the sold sofa because that person who would do the job was sick. But as soon as he recovered from his illness opposite party immediately approached to the complainant but complainant refused to talk with him and threatened the opposite party to drag the opposite party to the Consumer Court and teach them a lesson. opposite party repeatedly requested complainant to allow them to go to the place of complainant but complainant denied and still now OP is willing to resolve the issue.
DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
The complainant filed Affidavit-in Chief and BNA in course of proceedings and argument.
We have carefully gone through materials on record as well as verbal submission of the complainant. It is evident from the documents filed by complainant along with the petition of complaint that the complainant purchased the sofa on 04/12/2017 at a price of Rs.28,100/-with installation charge whereas said sofa started giving problem .
It is also evident in response to the complainant’s communication, opposite party miserably failed to rectify the problem with the sofa it is seen that the complainant in number of occasions on different dates communicated the opposite party and requested for redressal. The opposite party also in a number of occasions assured the complainant to provide necessary service but failed to make the sofa defect free by way of replacement/repairing.
Thus, opposite party was well aware of the deficiency in service and admitted such deficiencies. Since the opposite party contest the case by filing written version within the stipulated period, the case of the complainant together with the documents and arguments remains unchallenged.
In view of the above, it is observed that the complainant has successfully established it’s case to the effect that major deficiency in service exists on the part of the opposite party and therefore deserves an order directing the opposite party to replace defective sofa by a new defect-free one of same or identical model along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/.
Hence it is
ORDERED
that Case No. CC-635/2018 be allowed against OP with cost.
- The defective sofa of the complainant shall be replaced by a new defect-free one of same or identical model by opposite Party within 60 days from the date of this order.
- The OP also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant together with cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-within 60 days from the date of this order.
In the event of non compliance by the OP, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate necessary action as per law after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Dictated and corrected by
Member
