Ex-P A R T E O R D E R
PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) The facts of the complaint are that - On 19/03/2008 the Complainant purchased two chairs from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant alleged that they are defective. The chairs were purchased for Rs.6,682/-. The staff of the Opposite Party at Fountain was informed about the defect. The Complainant was promised by the staff that the chairs would be replaced but invain. The Complainant also sent a notice dtd.26/06/08 to the Opposite Parties but nothing was done. Meanwhile on 17/04/08, the inspector of the Opposite Parties inspected the chairs and prepared an inspection memo. The Manager, Mr.Pratap Vinayak of Godrej Showroom, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai also promised the Complainant that the chairs would be replaced but nothing was done.
2) The Complainant therefore, requested this Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the defective and faulty chairs, pay Rs.75,000/- compensation to the Complainant for her hardship and cost of this complaint.
3 The Complainant attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of her complaint.
a)Receipt of Rs.6,682/- dtd.07/03/08 No.38640 issued by the Opposite Party.
b)Challan issued by Opposite Party acknowledged on 19/03/2008 by the Complainant which is faint, blurred and hardly
readable.
c)Notice issued by the Complainant to the Manager, Godrej Showroom, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai, dtd.26/06/2008.
d)Job card (Inspection memo) dtd.17/04/2008.
4) The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3. Complainant produced the service proof vide exhibit ‘F’. Inspite of service of notice on the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 they did not appear before this Forum. Therefore, an ex-parte order was passed against the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 vide Roznama dtd.11/01/2010 and thereafter the Complainant filed affidavit of evidence and written argument wherein she reiterated the above facts only.
5) We heard the Complainant in person and perused the above said documents submitted by the Complainant and our findings are as follows.
6) The Complainant has produced the receipt of Rs.6,682/- issued by Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., dtd.07/03/2008 but from this cheque payment it can not be inferred that this amount was paid for purchase of the chairs delivered to the Complainant on 19/03/1998 as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant also produced one challan which is hard to read. With a great difficulty we read some of the contents of this challan from which we gathered that it is regarding order No.397903 dtd.13/03/2008. quantity 2- packing 2 – weight Kg. 32.00. We do not find that this challan is in connection with two chairs in dispute.
7) Even if it is presumed that the Complainant had received two packages of 32 Kg. weight on 19/3/2008 there is a signature of the Complainant in the column negotiating “Received in order and in good condition”. The remark, is singed by the Complainant with date 19/03/2008. So from this it can be inferred that the packages that were received by the Complainant were in order and were in good condition on 19/03/2008.
8) The another document produced by the Complainant bears date 17/04/2008. It does not bear any signature of an Opposite Party. No defect is mentioned on this documents. Even it does not bear the signature of the Complainant. Therefore, we can not rely upon this document. No inference could be drawn from this document.
9) The last correspondence of the Opposite Party with one Mr.Pratap Vinayak, Manager, Godrej Showroom, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai – 1 is dtd.26/06/2008 wherein the Complainant again has stated that she telephoned to one Maneesha to replace faulty defective chair. Here also she has not mentioned what was the actual defect in the chair. In the main complaint as well as this notice dtd.26/06/2008 she made an ambiguous statement only that the chairs were defective, faulty. No other document except her bare complaint and the notice describes the goods defective. No exact defect is mentioned even in the complaint or in this notice.
10) Therefore, as the receipt dtd.07/03/2008, challan dtd.13/03/2008 do not mention about the chairs, the job card/Inspection memo does not bear the source of the document and absence of specific description of the defects in goods, we do not find any substance in this complaint and therefore, this complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.309/2009 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
