Date of Filing:20/08/2016

Date of Order:22/12/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated:22^nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1139/2016

Vs

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

1.     This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service and  to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum to the complainant for defective product supplied and  for harassment and wasting of time, and not being able to  use the product and topay the cost of proceedings and for other reliefs as this forum deems fit under circumstances of this complaint. 

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complaiant is the resident of Bengaluru city. With an intention to purchase the two sets of Diwan Type (box type) cots of Mysore teak wood material from O.P on 06.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.13,500/- and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- and O.P promised to execute the order as per the specifications and would use the mysore teak material.  On 12.06.2015 the O.P had delivered both cots to the complainant’s residence. The complainant found the polish started coming out from both the cots within one week of delivery. Complainant immediately contacted the proprietor of the O.P and the complainant was shocked that the furniture were not in usable condition at all and the said furnitures were damaged and the complainant’s suspects furnitures were pre owned.Complainant informed the O.P about the damage to the furnitures but O.P ignored the complainant and further O.P also did not answer to the phone correspondences.   Hence the complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of notice to the O.P. and O.P. remained absent and hence placed exparte.

4.     The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents.Heard the arguments. The following points arise for our consideration:-

                   1)   Whether the complainant has proved

                       deficiency in service on the part of the

                       Opposite Party?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

                       the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative.

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the Affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

6.     On perusal of the complaint averments and the evidence placed on record, it is the specific case of the complainant he purchased i.e. two sets of Diwan type (Box type) cots of Mysore teak wood material from o.p. which is evident from the receipt/bill produced.

7.     On perusal of the Annexure-A i.e. Estimate Bill dated 06/06/2015 issued by the O.P it is evident that O.P quoted the price of the furnitures i.e. Rs.13,500/-  for two Diwan cots.  On perusal of Annexure-B photographs (5 in Nos.) clearly discloses that, the wooden furnitures sent by the O.P were in damaged condition and hence the complainant rightly demanded to refund the amount.

8.     It is worth to note that the evidence placed on record clearly discloses that, inspite of the many communications made by the complainant, O.P being the service provider completely ignored the complainant’s request.Further, inspite of service of notice by the Forum O.P failed to appear before the Forum to answer the  allegation/claim made by the complainant and all these facts made us to draw inference that the O.Ps service is difficient,and has adopted the unfair trade practice. Furthermore, the evidence placed on record cannot be disbelieved and we have no other option to hold that complainant proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Under the circumantcens, we deem it just and proper to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/- to the complainant and also  to direct the O.P after paying the above said amount to receive back the defective furnitures. Further due to act of the O.P, it made the complainant to approach this Forum to redress his grievence and hence O.P is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.

2. O.P i.e Woodcraft Furniture, represented by its Proprietor Mr.Chetan Gowda is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/-  to the complainant being the cost of the furniture purchased by him along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint  till payment of entire amount. After paying the above said amount complainant is directed to handover the furnitures purchased by him to O.P within 15 days from thereon.

3. Further O.P is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

4.  The O.P is hereby directed to comply the above order at within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 22^nd DECEMBER 2018)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Annexure-A: Copy of the two Diwan cots bill from the OP

Annexure-B: Photographs of defective Diwan cot (5 Nos.)

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Nil.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• Nil -

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

A