DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th day of April 2009.

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)

C.C.No.2/2006

Noufal Rahiman

S/o. Mohammed

Pallat House

Kanhirapuzha P.O.

Mannarkkad Taluk

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Adv. K.P. Nouphal)

V/s

The Proprietor

P.P. Timbers

Kanjirampara Post

Chemmanode

Melathur

Malappuram District – 679 325 - Opposite Party

( Adv. T.U. Shaik Abdulla )

O R D E R

By Smt. A.K. Bhanumathi, Member

The complaint in brief is as follows.

The proprietor of the Opposite party along with his staff approached the complainant on 15.12.2004 and took booking for the furniture namely Settee three pieces worth Rs.24,000/- and one Divan coat worth Rs.6,250/- and one Teapoy worth Rs.1,250/- and obtained a sum of Rs.2,500/- as advance and thereafter told the complainant that the said furniture will be delivered to the house of the complainant on 20/12/2004 at free of freight. At the time of availing booking the Opposite party made to believe the complainant that the said furniture will be of good quality and standard and will long last for minimum 10 years. The complainant made the said booking of item on believing the assurance made by the Opposite party . On 20/12/2004 Opposite party came to the house of the complainant and delivered the said furniture at home and issued the final bill for a total sum of Rs.35,847/- . Complainant paid the whole amount. Within four months from the date of purchase of the same the said furnitures become look obsolete and the polish of the same completely gone and the wooden part of the same started wrinkling and the settee and sofa part of

• 2 -

   

the Divan coat completely loosened and springs became action less and the stitches of the settee and Divan coat completely worn out and hence all became out of use. This fact was informed to the Opposite party for several times and the opposite party told that the same will be replaced while they are coming to that area next time. As such many dates were mentioned and finally they told that they will come and replace the same on 25/12/2005 and on that day also Opposite party did not keep the words. Finally on 26.12.2005 when the complainant went to the shop of the Opposite party and asked to replace the said furniture, the opposite party told the complainant to get out from the shop by saying that they are not even ready to repair the defective furniture. Hence the complaint filed seeking an order directing the opposite party to give back the amount collected from the complainant with 12% interest from the date of purchase or to replace the furniture and pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the case proceedings.

Complaint was admitted and Opposite party filed version in which Opposite party denies all the contentions of the complainant. According to Opposite party the complainant came to the show room of the Opposite party and placed orders for the furniture. The Opposite party has not approached the complainant at any point of time whether to take orders or to deliver any items of furniture.

Complainant filed affidavit. Exhibit A1 marked. Commissioners report was marked as Exhibit C1. Opposite party filed proof affidavit.

The issues to be considered are:

1. Whether forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of opposite party and if so

3. What is the relief and cost?

Issue No.1

Opposite party has contented that his furniture shop is located at Melattur in Malappuram district and hence the forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the affidavit filed by the complainant it is specifically stated that Opposite party has approached the complainant at his resident and took orders for purchase of the furniture and also delivered the same at the complainant's residence. Witness examined as PW1 who went along with Opposite party has also

stated that the order was placed from the complainant's residence. Hence we are of the view

- 3 -

that the forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this forum. Point No.1 answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues 2 & 3

It is evident from Exhibit A1 that the complainant purchased the furniture worth Rs.35,847/- from the Opposite party. As alleged by the complainant, the commissioner also pointed out many defects to the said furniture in his report which is marked as Exhibit C1. Opposite party states that the furniture delivered to the complainant and the furniture shown to the commissioner are different. This fact is not proved by the opposite party. Opposite party filed an application to cross examine the Commissioner at a belated stage. The same was allowed on terms. Even though the forum has given an opportunity to cross examine the commissioner no steps were taken by the Opposite party. Commissioner has specifically noted many defects in the furnitures purchased and stated the same was made by low quality products. Further PW1 while cross examined has stated that he has acquaintance with Opposite party and he also went with the opposite party to the complainants house for taking orders and the opposite party assured the complainant to supply furniture made of good quality. We are of the view that furniture becoming useless within one year from the date of purchase cannot be said to be of good quality.

From the forgoing discussions, we are of the view that the act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service. The complainant informed the opposite party many times about the defects in the furniture and the Opposite party did not care to solve the grievances of the complainant.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- being cost of the furniture and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the case proceedings. The whole amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th day of April 2009.

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

- 4 -

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

PW1 – Sri. Muhammed Musammil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Cash bill No.177 dated 20.12.04 of P P M Timbers for Rs.35,847/-

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

1. Ext. C1 – Commissioners Report dated 04/04/2007

Cost (allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent