Order No.  12  dt.  07/01/2019

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased four furniture goods from o.ps. at a price of Rs.51,400/-. The complainant purchased those articles for giving as gift in a marriage of her daughter and the goods were delivered at 63, Rabindra Road, P.O. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Dist. Howrah. After using of those articles the complainant noticed that the articles were of very inferior quality and became defective. The complainant brought it to the notice of o.ps. on 16.1.17. The complainant thereafter visited several times to o.ps. to repair the damaged articles, but o.ps. did not pay any heed for which the complainant filed this case by making allegation against the o.ps. that the articles shown at the shop of o.ps. were totally different from the articles delivered at the address given by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.51,400/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the articles were purchased in the year 2014 and the case was filed in the year 2018, as such, the case filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. The complainant purchased those articles on 14.6.14 in presence of the agents of the complainant in good condition as approved by the agents well as in laws family of the complainant. The complainant raised the dispute on 16.1.17 and on the basis of the said fact o.ps. emphasized that the case was not filed within the stipulated period of two years. The o.ps. stated that as the government has prohibited of cutting of trees o.ps. have promoted alternative of wood to avoid future problem, imported furniture from different countries. The wooden like imported furniture (Modfern) made of high dust fiber (HDF) which is looking like wood against 1/3^rd price of wooden furniture. The o.ps. after getting such complaint from complainant sent a technical person to remove the defects, but he was not allowed to enter the house. The warranty as mentioned in respect of the furniture purchased by the complainant was of five years warranty for service. The complainant after using the furniture for three years at a stretch lodged the complaint and he has not disclosed what was the defect and the representative of o.ps. was not allowed to inspect the defect. In order to have the monitory gain the complainant has falsely started this case and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant purchased those articles from o.ps.?
2. Whether during the warranty period the articles were found defective?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased four furniture goods from o.ps. at a price of Rs.51,400/-. The complainant purchased those articles for giving as gift in a marriage of her daughter and the goods were delivered at 63, Rabindra Road, P.O. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Dist. Howrah. After using of those articles the complainant noticed that the articles were very inferior quality and became defective. The complainant brought it to the notice of o.ps. on 16.1.17. The complainant thereafter visited several times to o.ps. to repair the damaged articles, but o.ps. did not pay any heed for which the complainant filed this case by making allegation against the o.ps. that the articles shown at the shop of o.ps. were totally different from the articles delivered at the address given by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.51,400/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the articles were purchased in the year 2014 and the case was filed in the year 2018, as such, the case filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. The complainant purchased those articles on 14.6.14 in presence of the agents of the complainant in good condition as approved by the agents well as in laws family of the complainant. The complainant raised the dispute on 16.1.17 and on the basis of the said fact o.ps. emphasized that the case was not filed within the stipulated period of two years. The o.ps. stated that as the government has prohibited of cutting of trees o.ps. have been promoted alternative of wood to avoid future problem, imported furniture from different countries. The wooden like imported furniture (Modfern) made of high dust fiber (HDF) which is looking like wood against 1/3^rd price of wooden furniture. The o.ps. after getting such complaint from complainant sent a technical person to remove the defects, but he was not allowed to enter the house. The warranty as mentioned in respect of the furniture purchased by the complainant was of five years warranty for service. The complainant after using the furniture for three years at a stretch lodged the complaint and he has not disclosed what was the defect and the representative of o.ps. was not allowed to inspect the defect. In order to have the monitory gain the complainant has falsely started this case and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the articles from o.ps. on 14.6.14 and after the lapse of three years the complainant made a complaint to o.ps. raising the dispute that there was defect in the articles. The complainant has stated that in the petition of complaint that immediately after the purchase of those articles he found that the articles provided to the complainant were not of the same quality in respect of the articles shown to him at the showroom. The complainant came to learn of the said fact after the lapse of three years for which the complainant has stated that fraud was practiced by o.ps. It is hardly believable that after using the furniture for three years he came to learn that fraud was practiced upon him. The complainant did not allow the o.ps. to make inspection of the articles which was allegedly damaged during the using of those furniture by in laws house of the complainant. But unfortunately o.ps. while sent a representative to inspect the articles he was not allowed to enter the house for inspection of the articles. The complainant in order to have the financial gain from o.ps. and after using the articles for three years continuously raised an objection regarding the defect in respect of those articles and claimed the amount paid by him which is not at all believable and the complainant did not come with clean hands for which he will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.100/2018 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.