DATE OF FILING: 22.5.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.8.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
This complaint filed by the complainant namely Sri Debendra Kumar Nahak, S/O late Chandramani Nahak of village Deindeen, P.O: Madhuruchha, Ganjam under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party alleging defects in goods and unfair trade practice.
In brief, the case of the complainant is that, on dated 31.3.2012 the complainant had gone to the show room of O.P. i.e. the Proprietor M/s Wellwood and Steel Crafts Furniture life style, to purchase wooden cot. Complainant had purchased a king patterned cot of 6X6 size and accordingly paid Rs.27,240/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand two hundred forty) only towards consideration vide invoice No. 1352 dated 31.3.2012. Since the complainant was working at that time at Hyderabad, he had given his Hyderabad address to O.P. to parcel the cot to Hyderabad for which he had paid extra amount towards packing and parcel charges of the cot to the O.P. At the time of purchase the complainant questioned the O.P. about the quality of the cot which O.P. had assured him about the quality of the cot and given him a signed a written slip that if there will be any defect , the O.P. will return him the cost of the cot. As per the agreement, the O.P. had sent the parcel cot to Hyderabad. But after opening the package of cot the complainant found that the cot was made of worst wood with several joints which was a rejected cot piece. Immediately the complainant informed the above fact to the O.P. through telephone for his unfair trade practice but the O.P. did not given any suitable answer to the complainant. Finding no other way, the complainant served a pleader’s notice on the O.P. on dated 4.9.2013, but the O.P. did not give any reply, otherwise remained silent. The above acts of the O.P. showing falsely that the goods are of good quality is clearly an act of unfair trade practice. On the other hand the complainant suffered loss, mental agony and physical harassment due to the deprivation of the comfort of the wooden cot without getting any benefit and utility due to this illegal act of the Opposite Party.
Being aggrieved, the present complaint was filed by the complainant with a prayer to direct the O.P. to take back his cot and refund the money of the complainant as well as to give direction to the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only towards mental agony, harassment and also grant cost of litigation and any other relief as deems fit and proper in the interests of justice.
In support of his case, the complainant has filed the following documents alongwith written arguments which are attached in the case record.
(1) Photocopy of cash memo vide invoice No. 1352 dated.31.3.2012.
(2)Photocopy of slip dated 31.3.2012.
(3) Pleader’s notice.
(4) Photocopy of acknowledgment.
Notice was duly served on the Opposite Party. S.R. back from O.P. The O.P. appeared on dated 1.7.2014 through his learned counsel and the case was posted for filing written version. But the O.P. did not file any written version, although several opportunities were given to him. Hence the O.P. was declared as set exparte on dated 24.5.2016, where he failed to file his written version.
On the date of final hearing, we heard the matter exparte.
We heard the argument from the side of the complainant and perused the complaint and written argument and documents at length. On perusal of the documents we found that the complainant had purchased a wooden cot for an amount of Rs.27,240/- from O.P. vide invoice No. 1352 dated 31.3.2012 and after purchase, he found defect in the said wooden cot . Although the complainant informed the above defects to the O.P. through telephone but the O.P. did not give any answer to the complainant. Further it is seen that the complainant has served the pleaders notice to the O.P., but the O.P. did not give any reply, otherwise remained silent. When the complainant filed this case before this Forum, after receipt of notice the O.P. appeared but not preferred to contest the case to counter that there is no defect in wooden cot. Further the O.P. did not file any written version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum to show that the allegation made by the complainant is false and there is no defect in the wooden cot. So in absence of the specific denial through written version by the O.P, we are constrained to give weightage to the complaint of the complainant. Hence the Forum accepts the version of the complainant that the O.P. committed unfair trade practice by supplying a defective cot. As per Section 2( r) of C.P.Act, 1986 “ unfair trade practice means a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices that the practice of making statement whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quality grade, composition, style or model”. In the instant case since the O.P. falsely represented that the cot is of a particular standard, quality, grade, but supplied a wooden defective cot. The Forum views that the above act of O.P. has clearly shows an unfair trade practice. On the whole it is well understood that the complainant had purchased the cot with some hope and aspiration for his self comfort, which are not fulfilled in the instant case and the purchaser suffered loss by the transaction to a considerable high amount frustrating the whole purpose of transaction. The O.P. falsely displayed a tick wood cot of king model of well finished but sent by parcel a worst cot, which proves the unfair trade practice of the O.P. This Forum definitely warned through this order to the O.P. not to practice such type of unfair trade or transaction in future. Since the complainant did not file any document towards the parcel of the cot by the O.P. to Hyderabad, therefore the Forum views that in the absence of any documentary evidence, he is not entitled to any compensation towards parcel and extra charge given to O.P. In the light of the above discussion and in the present fact and circumstance of the case, we allow the case of the complainant against O.P.
In the result the Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.27,240/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Forty) only received towards sale of wooden cot to the complainant alongwith cost of Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry 6% interest per annum till final payment is made. The complainant is also directed to return the defective wooden cot to the O.P. at the time of receipt of the awarded amount from the O.P. Accordingly the case of the complainant is disposed of.
The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd August 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
