Delhi

East Delhi

CC/410/2018

AJAY GALHOT - Complainant(s)

Versus

WOOD MODERN FURNITURE - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.410/18

 

Shri Ajay Gahlot

S/o Shri Phool Singh

R/o J-13, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

•  

Vs

 

Wood Modern Furniture House

4/141, Lalita Park

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                                   ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 21.12.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 07.02.2020

Judgment Passed on: 14.02.2020

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER)

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

Judgment

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Shri Ajay Gahlot, the complainant, against Wood Modern Furniture House, OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Facts necessary for  the disposal of the present case are that the complainant had ordered 2 Beds of 60 x 72 inch and 36 x72 inch dimension from OP. The total cost of two beds was Rs.21,000/-. Pursuant to that the complainant had purchased 3 mattresses for Rs. 17,000/- . The complainant has stated that when the beds were delivered, they were small in size, for which OP was immediately informed, but all in vain.

Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of OP, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP to refund Rs. 21,000/-, being the cost of two beds. Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.

 The complainant has annexed invoice dated 14.8.2018 for purchase of mattresses, rough estimate along with copy of visiting card of OP, notice dated 21.06.2018 with the complaint.

 Written statement was filed by OP, where they have stated that the complainant had suppressed the material facts. They have submitted that the beds were made as per the room size and the complainant wanted to use old mattresses. They have also submitted that the complainant had filed a complaint after a lapse of considerable time period and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

 Rejoinder was filed by the complainant, where he has denied the submissions made in the written statement of OP and have reaffirmed  those of the complaint.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint.

 Mohd. Afzal, owner of Wood Modern Furniture House, was examined on behalf of OP. He has stated that in the month of December 2017, the complainant had ordered 2 Beds of size 60x72 inch and 36x72 inch respectively for Rs. 21000/- which included labour and raw material. The same was made as per the complainant’s specifications. It was stated that the complainant had purchased mattresses almost after 8 month from delivery. It was also submitted that the complainant had not released the full payment, rather, he had induced the OP to make a side table free of cost.

He has further deposed that the OP was an experienced carpenter and had never received any complaint.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the material placed on record. It is pertinent to mention that not even a single date has been mentioned in the complaint. However, conjoint reading of the notice dated 21.06.2018 and evidence filed by OP, we are able to get that the order was placed in the month of December 2017, but the mattresses were purchased on 14.08.2018 as per the invoice annexed with the complaint, which is almost after 8 months from delivery. The dimensions of the beds that had been ordered were                 72x60 inches and 72x36 inches is an admitted fact. The complainant in support of his contention has filed a furniture fitting job card dated 27.01.2019 as per the said furniture fitting job card, the measurements of the beds are 72x58 inches and 72x34 inches, respectively thus, the complainant has successfully proved that the beds which were made to order were of a smaller size, which amounts to deficiency in services.

The defence of balance payment seems an afterthought and further no document has been placed on record by OP in support of their defence.

However, it cannot be overlooked that complainant instead of approaching the OP immediately, complained after the lapse of 8 months from the date of delivery.  Hence, the equity demands that in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to be awarded to the complainant. 

This order be complied within a period of 30 days.  If not complied, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- shall carry 6% interest from the date of receipt of order.            

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President