In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 159/2011.
1) Anju Chakraborty,
6, Old Post Office Street,
P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-1. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Unique Marketing,
4th and 5th Floors, Homeland,
18B, Asutosh Mukherjee Ropad,
P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-20. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 05-07-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that on 12.12.10 the complainant had booked the some furniture at the Mani Square Mall showroom of the o.p. vide Order no.13871 dt.12.12.10 for her new flat being no.A.07.7 at NBCC VIBGYOR TOWERS, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, which it was informed to the o.p. at the time of placing the order for Rs.1,26,960/-.
The said order interalia contained the following terms:
i) A call should be given at least an hour before the delivery is made to the complainant.
ii) 50% advance with the order and balance before delivery.
iii) Delivery on 16th December, 2010, which was later changed to 17th December, 2010 and fitting on the next day.
iv) In case the advance amount is less than 50%, the buyer is requested to deposit the balance amount within 7 days of booking failing which seller may cancel the booking and forfeit the advance amount.
On the very next day the complainant placed another order no.13872 dt.13.12.10 for the mattress for Rs.9800/-.
Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on such booking on 12.12.10. The complainant paid the entire balance sum of Rs.86,760/- on the next day.
On 17.12.10 a number of packets were delivered.
On 18.12.10 the complainant received a call from one Gautam Mistri to inform her that the fittings would be done on the next day. On 19.12.10 the complainant was waiting in the said flat since 1 p.m. Two fitters reached at about 4.45 p.m. They opened some packets and partly fitted the wardrobe. They were in a hurry and left at about 6 p.m. Since the courts were closing in next three days for winter vacation the complainant had requested them to complete the fitting on 24.12.10 and to start the work since morning.
On 24.12.10 two fitters came at about 1 p.m. keeping the complainant waiting since about 10.30 a.m. On Opening the balance packets it was found that:
i) the kitchen cabinet was not at all delivered;
ii) the TV cabinet was without the glass doors and was having several scratches;
iii) the beside table was leaning;
On that date the bed was fitted, the wardrobe was claimed to be completed without fixing the locks ordered and the TV cabinet as supplied was fitted without the glass doors. The locks as brought would not fit the wardrobe and the un branded one sought to be fitted instead was worth hardly Rs.40/- and were total misfit. They left the furniture as they were on that day and informed that they would come after delivery of the kitchen cabinet.
On 25.12.10 the packets for kitchen cabinet were delivered. Next evening a call was received by the complainant from Mr. Mistri to inform that the tentative date for fittings would be on 29.12.10 and the same would be confirmed on 28.12.10. On 28.12.10 no call came and on 29.12.10 after receiving no call till afternoon and on the complainant calling Mr. Mistri she was informed that it would be done on the next day. The complainant then contacted the showroom at cell no.9230030676. The gentleman on the other side, Mr. Harsh, had assured to see that the work was completed the next day and was supposed to inform the complainant about the same by 5 p.m. that day. The said salesgirl had also agreed to visit the said flat next day to attend to the problems. No call came.
Complainant was presented a New Year’s gift by not sending anybody to the flat and no intimation being given. When she contacted Mr. Harsh, he directed her to call 9230034857.
On 3.1.11 at about 8 p.m. a representative of the complainant had called on the showroom personally and met the said salesgirl and a gentleman whose name was not disclosed. They informed that the balance work would be completed by 6.1.11. On 4.1.11 the polish mistri would be sent at 2 p.m. and the balance thereafter would be done.
On 4.1.11 at about 11.30 a.m. a call was received from one Subho cell no.8016869004 to know the address as he was in Rajarhat. When he was informed that time was fixed at 2 p.m. and he should go accordingly he left the phone by saying it was all right. The complainant had left the court in the afternoon and reached the flat at 2 p.m. Till 3 p.m. none came.
Complainant has been overcharged at least for two items namely the Godrej locks and TV cabinet. The Godrej locks were not at all fitted. The locks manufactured by EDCO were fitted to the wardrobe which costs Rs.125/- a piece in the market. The complainant has been charged Rs.400/- a piece. The same TV cabinet is available for Rs.26,000/-. The complainant has been charged Rs.32,000/- for a defective set with scratches. A copy of the Quotation of Modfurn for the said TV set is annexed hereto and marked with the letter ‘E’. The complainant would crave leave to rely on the photograph of the said TV unit displayed in the showroom of Modfurn to show its similarity.
Aforesaid events were duly recorded by the complainant by her letters dt.5.1.11, 13.1.11 and 25.1.11. The said letters were sent by hand as also by e-mail and duly received by o.p. No reply to any of the said letters was received. Copies of the said letters dt.5.1.11, 13.1.11 and 25.1.11 are annexed hereto and collectively marked with the letter ‘F’ alongwith petition of complaint. Copies of the said e-mails are also annexed hereto and marked with the letter ‘G’. By the said letter dt.25.1.11 the complainant has claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- and refund of the sums of Rs.6000/- and Rs.550/- charged in excess as aforesaid.
Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that on 12.12.10 the complainant had booked the some furniture at the Mani Square Mall showroom of the o.p. vide Order no.13871 dt.12.12.10 for her new flat being no.A.07.7 at NBCC VIBGYOR TOWERS, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata, which it was informed to the o.p. at the time of placing the order for Rs.1,26,960/-.
The said order interalia contained the following terms:
v) A call should be given at least an hour before the delivery is made to the complainant.
vi) 50% advance with the order and balance before delivery.
vii) Delivery on 16th December, 2010, which was later changed to 17th December, 2010 and fitting on the next day.
viii) In case the advance amount is less than 50%, the buyer is requested to deposit the balance amount within 7 days of booking failing which seller may cancel the booking and forfeit the advance amount.
We further find that on the very next day the complainant placed another order no.13872 dt.13.12.10 for the mattress for Rs.9800/-.
It is seen from the record that complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on such booking on 12.12.10. The complainant paid the entire balance sum of Rs.86,760/- on the next day. And On 17.12.10 a number of packets were delivered.
It is also seen that on 18.12.10 the complainant received a call from one Gautam Mistri to inform her that the fittings would be done on the next day. On 19.12.10 the complainant was waiting in the said flat since 1 p.m. Two fitters reached at about 4.45 p.m. They opened some packets and partly fitted the wardrobe. They were in a hurry and left at about 6 p.m. Since the courts were closing in next three days for winter vacation the complainant had requested them to complete the fitting on 24.12.10 and to start the work since morning.
On 24.12.10 two fitters came at about 1 p.m. keeping the complainant waiting since about 10.30 a.m. On Opening the balance packets it was found that:
iv) the kitchen cabinet was not at all delivered;
v) the TV cabinet was without the glass doors and was having several scratches;
vi) the beside table was leaning;
It transpires from the record that on that date the bed was fitted, the wardrobe was claimed to be completed without fixing the locks ordered and the TV cabinet as supplied was fitted without the glass doors. The locks as brought would not fit the wardrobe and the unbranded one sought to be fitted instead was worth hardly Rs.40/- and were total misfit. They left the furniture as they were on that day and informed that they would come after delivery of the kitchen cabinet.
It also transpires that on 3.1.11 at about 8 p.m. a representative of the complainant had called on the showroom personally and met the said salesgirl and a gentleman whose name was not disclosed. They informed that the balance work would be completed by 6.1.11. On 4.1.11 the polish mistri would be sent at 2 p.m. and the balance thereafter would be done.
We find that on 4.1.11 at about 11.30 a.m. a call was received from one Subho cell no.8016869004 to know the address as he was in Rajarhat. When he was informed that time was fixed at 2 p.m. and he should go accordingly he left the phone by saying it was all right. The complainant had left the court in the afternoon and reached the flat at 2 p.m. Till 3 p.m. none came.
We further find that complainant has been overcharged at least for two items namely the Godrej locks and TV cabinet. The Godrej locks were not at all fitted. The locks manufactured by EDCO were fitted to the wardrobe which costs Rs.125/- a piece in the market. The complainant has been charged Rs.400/- a piece. The same TV cabinet is available for Rs.26,000/-. The complainant has been charged Rs.32,000/- for a defective set with scratches. A copy of the Quotation of Modfurn for the said TV set is annexed hereto and marked with the letter ‘E’. The complainant would crave leave to rely on the photograph of the said TV unit displayed in the showroom of Modfurn to show its similarity.
And aforesaid events were duly recorded by the complainant by her letters dt.5.1.11, 13.1.11 and 25.1.11. The said letters were sent by hand as also by e-mail and duly received by o.p. No reply to any of the said letters were received. Copies of the said letters dt.5.1.11, 13.1.11 and 25.1.11 are annexed hereto and collectively marked with the letter ‘F’ . Copies of the said e-mails are also annexed hereto and marked with the letter ‘G’ along with complaint. By the said letter dt.25.1.11 the complainant has claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- and refund of the sums of Rs.6000/- and Rs.550/- charged in excess as aforesaid.
It is further seen from the record that complainant placed an order on 12.12.10 and another order on 13.12.10 with o.p. for purchase of certain furniture amounting to Rs.1,36,760/- and delay in completion of work within the stipulated period was due to complainant herself as we find from the materials on record. It is further seen from the record that complainant does not reside in the said flat and her availability of the said flat could not be procured by o.p.’s men and agents and the same resulted in delay in completion of the work. It is further seen from the job chart that complainant certified work done satisfactorily and fittings were proper and there is no whisper of any fault of any fittings and supply of substandard quality of articles.
In view of the above findings we are of the opinion that o.p. did not have any deficiency while providing service to the consumer / complainant while arriving at a decision we have relied upon case laws of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008 CTJ 954 (CP) (NCDRC), 1991(1) CPR 142, 1997(2) CVPR 64 (NC) and 1992(2) CPR 393 referred by o.p.
In result we hold that the complainant has failed to substantiate and prove her case and complaint case fails and complainant is not entitled to relief since we find no lapse on the part of o.p. being service provider to its consumer / complainant.
Hence, ordered,
That the case stands dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
