Judgment : Dt.20.2.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Sirish Kumar Sen, son of Late Devendra Kumar Sen of C-12/12, Manjulika,Ektp-IV, P.S.-Anandapur, Kolkakta-700 107 against (1) M/s Outpace Furniture Pvt. Ltd., shop No.G-03 & 219, Metropoli Mall, Hiland Park, P.S.- Survey Park, Kolkakta-700 094, OP No.1 and (2) The Manager, Outpace Furniture Pvt. Ltd., 193, N.S.C. Bose Road, P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 040, OP No.2, praying for refunding the full value of the dining table along with four chairs amounting to Rs.14,800/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. till realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased one Estillo brand dining table with glass top at a price of Rs.14,800/- from Estillo Lifestyle furniture, outpace furniture Pvt. Ltd. from shop No.G-3 of Metropolis Mall, which was delivered to the Complainant’s house on 27.1.2015.

            Within three weeks of the purchase, one of the legs of the table started wobbling. Complainant realized that there is some defects in manufacturing of the product. Complainant informed this fact with a request to attend his house. OP No.1 sent service personnel on three occasions, who admitted that there is some problem with the model itself. Complainant was assured that within five years no problem will be observed in the dining table.

            Thereafter the leg was fixed with adhesive. But, the table again started wobbling and it could not remain stable. Complainant made several requests to the OP and asked for replacing the table, but of no use. So, finally it was observed that even touching the table caused shaking. Complainant registered a complain to the show room, but nothing could be done. Thereafter, Complainant made complaint to the Managing Director. But it could not also solve the problem. So, Complainant filed this complaint.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations. Further, OP has stated that all the allegations of the Complainant are baseless and so all the allegations are denied. OP has, further, stated that the Company runs the business of wooden furniture and it is a reputed company. But, the defect in the dining table is the result of misuse by the Complainant. OPs are importers of the furniture and not manufacturer. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons:

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Thereafter OP left taking step and the case was heard.

            Main point for determination is whether the reliefs prayed by the Complainant are just and need to be allowed.

Complainant has prayed for refund of full value of the dining table along with 4 chairs to the tune of Rs.14,800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Complainant filed Xerox copy of the receipts which reveal that the price of dining set with four chairs was Rs.14,800/-. This receipt was issued on 4.12.2014. This complaint was filed by the Complainant on 26.8.2016. Further on 2.5.2016 Complainant wrote a letter to the Store Manager stating that the glass table top was replaced in May, 2015 but  not the legs. Complainant has filed correspondences. So, it is clear that OPs by not participating in the trial despite making appearance, indirectly admitting the complaint and made Complainant entitled to the reliefs prayed for him in part.

             As such, we are of the view that if Rs.14,800/- is allowed the object of justice would be served.

            Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each. However, on perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has claimed total price of the dining set i.e. Rs.14,800/-. But, from one letter, it appears that the table top was replaced. In the circumstances, let OP be directed to refund Rs.14,800/- after Complainant handed over the old dining set along with 4 chairs to the OP. There does not appear, in the circumstance, for allowing compensation and litigation cost.

Hence,

ordered

             CC/398/2016 and the same is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.14,800/-, the price of dining set to the Complainant within three months of this order, provided Complainant returns the old dining set to the OP.