Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/3/2015

G.Seetha Lakshmi,Wife of Stalin - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor AMMA FURNITURE MALL. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Stalinbabu

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :20-01-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal: 28-08-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  28th day of   AUGUST, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                        Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.3/2015

 

G. Seetha Lakshmi,

W/o.Stalin, Aged 39 years, Hindu,

Flat No.302, 4^th floor,

Sri Sai Sudheesh Reddy Residency,

Balaji Nagar, Nellore.                                                                        ..… Complainant    

                                                             Vs.

 

The Proprietor, Amma Furniture Mall, Near Millenium Sub Station, Minibypass Road, Rammurthy Nagar, Nellore-524 002.                                                                               ..…Opposite party

                                                             .

            This complaint coming on 18-08-2017  before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri  G.Stalin Babu, Advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Gangadhar Reddy,                                                        advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (BY Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member )

          

 

1.    The complaint filed by the complainant   under section  12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  prays the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to refund the 20963-COT with side table (1.8) model no.107 costs Rs.24,375/-, compensation towards conveyance charges Rs.1600/- and to pay Rs.5,000/- for mental agony along with costs.

 

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

 

   The complainant after seeing the vide publicity in T.V. and News paper went to the opposite party exhibition cum sale at GPA Kalyana Mandapam, Nellore on              08-07-2014 and purchased 20963-COT with side table (1.8) model 107, 26184-Coffee table model no.C30 and 26619 coffee table model no.981 for Rs.47,500/-  from the opposite party.  But the opposite party gave discount and received Rs.36,370/- from the complainant and issued invoice bearing no.3105 dated       08-07-2014.to the complainant, in which no TIN number and warranty particulars are not mentioned.  The opposite party also issued gift coupon to the complainant,

which contains 3 months validity, but he did not delivered the same.  Further, the complainant states that the opposite party shown good conditioned 20963-COT with table (1.8) medel No.107 and he delivered defective, renovated reconditioned item to the complainant.  Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party show room and informed the same for which, they assured relating to rectification of furniture by sending their technicians, but in vain.  Subsequently, the complainant approached the opposite party for exchange of defective furniture for which they did not respond.  Later the complainant sent letter two e-mails dated 24-09-2014 and  01-10-2014 to the opposite party seeking refund of cost of the defective furniture of Rs.24,375/- but the opposite party failed to pay the amount. So the acts of the opposite party come under the purview of deficiency of service   and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complaint.

 

 

3. The brief averments of the counter are as follows:

 

The opposite party submits that all the complaint allegations are false and frivolous and the complaint is neither just nor sustainable under Law.  The opposite party admitted the Ex.A1 transaction, but denied that the invoice is silent pertaining to TIN number and other particulars along with gift coupon.  The opposite party further states that they never delivered defective, renovated, reconditioned and poor quality 20963-COT with side table (1.8) model no.107 to the complainant.  In fact, the complainant after satisfaction only purchased the said item and took delivery on 08-07-2014.  Meanwhile, the complainant family members damaged the goods for which, the complainant raised objection after lapse of 20 days i.e. 27-09-2014 only with an intention to defame the opposite party reputation  among the public of Nellore District.   Moreover, as per bill dated 8-7-2014 “goods once sold will not be taken back and no claim for compensation of any kind will we after the sale.”  The opposite party submits that they sent their staff to the complainant house for rectification of the furniture for which, they did not respond.  The opposite party submits that even now on humanitarian grounds they are ready to rectify the defective furniture.  So, there is no deficiency of service and  they never caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party prays the Hon’ble Forum at the time of enquiry the complaint may be dismiss with costs.

4.   After admission of the complaint, notice was issued to opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and they  filed their written version on             15-07-2015.

 

5.  The complainant filed her affidavit as PW1 on 26-08-2015 and also filed additional Chief affidavit on 12-04-2016 and in support of her case got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and also filed written arguments on 12-04-2016.  The opposite party filed their affidavit as RW1 on 09-10-2015 and in support of their case they filed written arguments on  04-11-2016 and additional written arguments and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party. 

 

6.  Heard arguments of the both sides and perused the pleadings,  documentary evidence placed on record and considered the written arguments filed on both sides.

 

7)  Now, the points that arise for determinations are:

       1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the

           opposite party as pleaded?

        2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

        3) To what relief?

 

8)  POINT  No.1:  As per the pleadings and evidence on record,  we can understand that the complainant  purchased  20963-COT with side table (1.8) model 107 for Rs.24,375/- (after discount) from the opposite party under Ex.A1 invoice dated 08-07-2014.  Subsequently, on 27-09-2014 the complainant came to know that the said furniture delivered by the opposite party is defective rennovative, reconditioned and  poor in quality.  In that connection, the complainant went to the opposite party showroom and requested for exchange of new furniture instead of defective furniture, for which the opposite party did not respond.  Later, the complainant sent two e-mails dated 27-09-2014 and 01-10-2014 to the opposite party requesting for refund of defective furniture cost for which, the opposite party did not respond.  In this case, the complainant states that the opposite party failed to delivered the gift coupon which is valid for 3 months  i.e. from the date of Ex.A1 invoice.  In contra, the opposite party did not file any documentary proof relating to submission of gift  coupon to the complainant.  The opposite party further states that as per Ex.A1 invoice dated 8-4-2014 contains that “goods once sold will not be taken back and no claim for compensation of any kind will be after the sale”.  In contra, the complainant states that the Ex.A1 invoice terms and conditions are illegal and against the Law. The complainant to support his contention filed a decision of Hon’ble Kerla State  Consumer disputes redressal Commission, Vizhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram  in appeal No.924/2012 dated 29-06-2013 in  The officer in charge,  Cochine Duty Free Shop, Cochin Interntional Airport Ltd.,  Nedumbassery, Ernakulam District Vs. M.N.Manohar, President, Idukki Dist. Consumers Vgilance Forum, Adam Star Complex, Thodupuzha, PO Idukki District where in the Hon’ble Forum opined that Printing  “ goods once sold will not be taken/exchanged on bill” is  amounts to unfair trade practice.

   9)          In view of the above discussion and decision we are of the view that the  opposite party committed deficiency of service and un trade fair practice  against the complainant for which, complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.24,375/-  towards the defective furniture  from the opposite party.  In this case, the complainant in addition claim Rs.1,600/- for compensation for conveyance charges along with costs  of Rs.5,000/- but in our view an amount of Rs.1,000/- for conveyance charges along with costs of Rs.3,000/- is sufficient.  So, we answered the points 1 and 2 in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party. Accordingly,  the complaint is allowed.

 10)    POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed  directing the opposite party to refund Rs.24,375/- (Rupees twenty four thousand three hundred and seventy five only)  towards cost of  furniture bearing no.  20963-COT with side table (1.8) model 107  and to pay Rs.1,000/-  (Rupees one thousand only)  for compensation towards conveyance charges along with costs of RS.3,000/-  (Rupees three thousand only ) to the complainant.  Further the complainant is directed to handover the defective furniture to the opposite party at time of  payment.  The opposite party has to  comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

    Typed to dictation to the Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  28th  day of  AUGUST, 2017.

    

              Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                         Sd/- 

         MEMBER                                MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1

26-08-2015       AND   12-04-2016

G.Seethalakshmi, Wife of Stalin Babu, aged 39 years, Hindu, resident of Flat No.302, 4th floor, Sri Sai Sudheesh Reddy Residency Near Swamidoss School, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.

 

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1

09-10-2015

G.Sujan Reddy, S/o.Sudhakar Reddy aged 37 years, Hindu.  The Proprietor, Amma Furniture Mall, Near Millenium Sub Station, Minibypass Road, Rammurthy Nagar, Nellore.

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1	08-07-2014	Brochured type invoice No.3105 issued by the opposite party in favour of complainant for an amount of Rs.36,370/-.
Ex.A2		Gift coupon issued to complainant by the opposite party.
Ex.A3	27-09-2014	Email correspondence to the opposite party sent by the complainant.
Ex.A4	01-10-2014	Email notice to opposite party issued by the complainant.
Ex.A5	04-04-2016	Letter addressed regarding TIN No.33/2015-A-3, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer No.II, Nellore by the counsel for the complainant.
Ex.A6	04-03-2016	Letter in Rc.22910)/2014/A7 issued by the Dy.CTO-I & Rc.No.46/2013/B7, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer No.11, Nellore to the Dy.Commercial Tax officer-I, Nellore-II circle.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

NIL -

 

                                                                                          

     Id/-                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri G.Stalin Babu, Advocate, 16-1891, Opp: Millenium Sub Station, Srinivasa Agraharam, Mini by pass Road, Nellore.
2.	Sri P.Gangadhar Reddy, Advocate, 23/826/1, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore – 524 003.

 

Date when free copy was issued: