Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/141/2021

Mr.Akhil Maaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Home Centre Lifestyle International Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

U.Karunakaran

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :20.10.2021

Date of disposal               :18.01.2023

         

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                       :PRESIDENT

            TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                             : MEMBER-I  

            THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA., :MEMBER-II

                              

C.C. No.141/2021

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 18^TH  DAY OF JANUARY 2023

Akhil Maaran,

Plot No.679,

4^th Street, ‘D’ sector w  block,

Anna Nagar West Extn.,

Chennai-600 101.                                                                                                                                                                                        .. Complainant.                                                                          ..Vs..

Home Centre,

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

VR Mall, Pillaiyar koil street,

Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai-600 040.                                                             ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                       : M/s.U.Karunakaran and 2 others

Counsel for  opposite party                                 : Exparte.  

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.        : PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation for a sum of Rs.250000/- for loss and mental agony to complainant by the opposite party the act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to replace brand new Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner or refund the amount of Rs.125950/- with 18% interest p.a. and cost of the complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that The complainant states that he along with his mother have placed the order in the opposite party's Home Centre for Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner for paid Rs. 1,25,950/- on 23-04-2021. The opposite party  informed the product will be delivered on or before 30.04.2021 as the product was out of stock and they have also stated that they have only one demo Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner. However, immediately thereafter lockdown was announced due to COVID 19. In the meanwhile on enquiry o mobile phone, opposite party staff has informed to the complainant that the production of Recliner is continued even during lockdown and it will delivered as soon as the show room is opened after lifting the lockdown. The complainant further stated that after lifting of Covid 19 Lockdown he has requested the opposite party for delivery of recliner. Initially for the first two days opposite party had replied to the complainant that the load of Recliner was yet to be received and thereafter for the next two days, opposite party have informed that the computer in the show room was not working. Then finally the fifth day, the complainant to take delivery of the product. Further the opposite party have actually supplied the assembled Recliner with damage, old and defective condition on 04/07/2021. Certainly it is not a fresh one. The images of the damages of Recliner were sent to the opposite party through whatsapp on the same day.  The complainant further state that the fully assembled Recliners in view of the its size it cannot be take inside the door without dismantled condition. But the opposite party have not taken due care to deliver the brand new one. The opposite party not only delayed the delivery of goods but also delivered the defective goods. The complainant further states that when he enquired about the damages, the manager and the show room staff replied that they could not do anything and added that the complainant had to accept the product even if any damage. Further they had not handed over the original invoice bill for the product at the time of delivery of the product. The complainant further stated that the opposite party's company people came on 05/07/2021 assemble the Recliner and informed that he had received the assembled Recliner with damage and defective condition and the opposite party’s noticed the damages and further they informed that the company will send all the parts in separate box and the technician/company people had to assemble them in customer place. The complainant further stated that the supplied Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner was defective and damaged condition. The opposite party's company logo or brand name was not embossed in the product. The complainant sent email on 08.07.2021 to replace the damaged product.  Accordingly the complainant sent the picture of damaged product through email on 09.07.2021. There was no response from the opposite party. Further stated that the opposite party reply on 16.07.2021 informed that the complaint was registered and number is 62835. The opposite party technician visited the complainant house on 19.07.2021 took photos the damaged portion of the Recliner and the complainant requested for replacement of the recliner with new one for which the opposite party sent a reply email on 21.07.2021 stating that they were unable to comply with the request made by the complainant and hence the complainant issued a legal notice on 07.08.2021 for which there was no reply and hence this complaint. 

2. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the opposite party caused any deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint.

If, so to what extent?

Complainant had filed proof affidavit, written argument and documents Ex.A1 to A13 were marked on the complainant side.  The Opposite party was set exparte.

3. Point No.1:-

          The fact that the complainant has purchased as three seater Helsinki Electric Recliner from the opposite party on 23.04.2021 by paying Rs.125950/- is not in dispute between the parties.  At according to the complainant at the time of purchase it was informed by the opposite party that the product will be delivered tentatively before 30.04.2021 as the product was out of stock and thereafter the lockdown was announced due to Covid-19 and the opposite party showroom was closed and further after lifting of lockdown after several request it was informed that the product will be supplied in unassembled package as it was sent from manufacturing unit but contrary to the same, the product was supplied in assembled manner in a defective and damaged condition on 04.07.2021 and hence since is the same is a demo piece seems to be old one the complainant has taken images of the product and sent it to the opposite party through whatsapp on the same date which is marked as Ex.A2 and the tax invoice is marked as Ex.A1.  Further according to the complainant in view of large size of assembled recliner it cannot be taken inside the door without dismantling the same and the delivery man doesnot know how to dismantle and hence for morethan hour they waited and after getting instruction through whatsapp video call they have dismantled the product in the car parking area of the complainant and taken inside the house and said dismantling is evidenced by photographs which is marked as Ex.A13 and further stated that the product was delivered in a delayed manner and in the a defective and damaged condition and contrary to the promise they have not given original bill at the time of purchase or delivery as assured  by them and for the complaints sent by the complainant which were marked as Ex.A3 to A5 reply was sent by the opposite party on 16.07.2021 and 20.07.2021 which is marked as Ex.A6 and A7 and another reply which is marked as Ex.A9 thereby finally the opposite party replied that at the time of purchase itself the complainant agreed for delayed delivery and he was informed that the delivered product is at risk and also informed that the product will come only in assembled condition and no installation is required.  But there is no proof to show that the complainant agreed to receive the product in assembled condition and also there is no proof that the complainant agreed for delayed delivery of the product as stated in Ex.A9 reply. Further Ex.A9 is dated 21.07.2021 but the contends of this reply were not stated in the earlier reply which were marked as Ex.A6 and A7 and hence it seems to be an after thought by the opposite party to evade from the liability.

4.  Further in Ex.A1 the tentative delivery date is shown as 30.04.2021 and amount was paid on 23.04.2021 but the product was supplied on 04.07.2021 which is three months later than the payment date and there is no valid explanation for the delay in delivery similarly it is found from Ex.A9 reply that opposite party has admitted that the product is supplied by them is at risk though they have stated that since the complainant forced the store team and delivery team to do it.  There is no proof for the same.  Normally a larger size product will be delivered only in unassembled condition to facilitate easy access inside the house and then it will  assembled and installed by the technician but from the documents and images filed by the complainant it is found that the opposite party delivery persons has acted in a negligent manger and supplied the product with a delay of three months from the date of purchase and that too supplied the product without furnishing original bill as promised which all would amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. Though there is no direct proof with regard to supply of inferior quality and used demo product by the opposite party the images filed by the complainant coupled with the reply by the opposite party in Ex.A9 will prove that the opposite party has supplied a defective product and hence only the opposite party has not denied such contention of the complainant in the reply sent by them and hence under such circumstances the evidence of an expert or technical person is not necessary and hence the opposite party is liable to replace the old product by supplying a new Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner to the Complainant. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

5. POINT NO.2

Based on findings  given to Point No.1 there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled for replacement of New Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner from the opposite party within two months from the date of order and also entitled for damages of Rs.30000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship to the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/-  towards cost of this complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed to replace the old one with a New Helsinki Three Seater Electric Recliner within two months from the date of order and also pay a sum of  Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for physical hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th  day of January 2023.

 

MEMBER – I                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	23.04.2021	Tax invoice no.0190415300060132.
Ex.A2	04.07.2021	Images of damages of recliner sent to the opposite party.
Ex.A3	08.07.2021	Complainant sent the complaint.
Ex.A4	09.07.2021	Letter and images of damages sent to the opposite party.
Ex.A5	14.07.2021	Email sent by the complainant.
Ex.A6	16.07.2021	Reply received from the opposite party.
Ex.A7	20.07.2021	Reply received from the opposite party.
Ex.A8	21.07.2021	Email sent by the complainant.
Ex.A9	21.07.2021	Reply received from the opposite party.
Ex.A10	27.07.2021	Email sent by the complainant.
Ex.A11	07.08.2021	Legal notice sent by the complainant.
Ex.A12		Proof of deliver.
Ex.A13		Photographs.

 

MEMBER – I                  MEMBER – II                                     PRESIDENT