ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in supplying low quality reclining chair and for refund of cost of Rs.82,501/- paid towards the said chair along with interest at 15%, for Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and sufferance and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that; OP is a furniture dealer.  He purchased a recliner chair by paying Rs.82,501/- on 12.02.2017 from OP for which he delivered an Invoice No.161703597 and delivered the product on 18.02.2017 with a product warrantee of one year.  The said product is of very bad quality.  The said chairs cover started Peeling off within six months from the date of purchase.  He complained the same to OP on 03.12.2017.  There was no response from OP.  OP personally visited the house to see the condition of the recliner.  He informed that he will replace the cover of the recliner chair for which complainant has to pay the money.  Complainant visited OP’s shop several time to resolve the matter and inspite of it the same has not been done.  Time and again OP has been insisting for payment of the amount though the said reclining chair purchased by him was within the warrantee period.  Inspite of repeated demands by writing letters and emails to repair the same, OP has not acceded to his demand and hence the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission through his advocate and did not file version.  The Forum forfeited the right to file the version  against which OP preferred a Revision Petition before the Hon’ble Statement Commission in R.P.No.91/2019 and the same was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-.  Afterwards, OP filed the version but has not paid cost imposed by the State Commission.  In the version filed by the OP, It has denied all the allegations made against it in each and every para of the complaint.  Further it is contended that the allegations made are baseless with malafide intention and ulterior motive to have wrongful gain from him.  OP is a leading and well reputed institution in importing, trading and sell all kinds of furniture throughout India.  Having maintained high value in the business, has an excellent track record.  OP has various clients including corporation, government, semi government institution besides other public as their customers. 

4.      It is further contended that the complainant purchased the Recliner Chair by paying the money and the same was delivered to him on time. The chair was choosen by the complainant himself.  Complainant approached it after long time and upon the grievance of the complainant OP visited and found the leather has peeled off from the chair and has to be replaced for which nominal cost of replacing has to be paid by the complainant.  Whenever the complainant approached for settling the issue, it informed him to pay the nominal charges for replacing the leather of the chair.  Afterwards, complainant never approached it and did not pay the cost of replacing the outer cover of the recliner and has filed this complaint. It is ready to replace the outer cover of the recliner if the complainant pays the nominal charge and hence prayed to dismiss the same.

5.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. 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?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

7.     POINT No.1:-

        Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the OP is a furniture seller and the complainant is a consumer having purchased the recliner chair from OP on 12.02.2017 by paying Rs.82,501/-.  Ex.P.2 is the invoice.  The said fact is admitted by the OP.  Complainant has also produced the photographs to show that the outer leather of the recliner has peeled off. It is very ugly to look at it. Having purchased the said Recliner chair on 12.02.2017 complainant made the complaint to OP within a span of 10 months, regarding the peeling of the outer cover of the Recliner.  Though it is covered under warrantee, the correspondences made by OP with the complainant reveals that the leather covers do not come within the warrantee.  It is not specific also as to what is covered under the warrantee. Since the main attraction of the chair is the outer cover, for what parts of the chair the warrantee has been given is not explained.  Under the circumstances, looking to the photographs of the recliner chair the state of it has not been disputed by OP, we are of the opinion that the said chair has been supplied by the OP to the complainant is of not a good quality, otherwise within a short span of 10 months the outer leather would not have peeled out.  Under the circumstances, we hold that the OP has supplied a substandard material and demanding money for repairing it, amounts to unfair trade practice and also not repairing the same amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

8.     Complainant has paid Rs.82,501/- towards purchasing the said Recliner chair.  Naturally one will be put to lot of mental strain and agony if such a costly chair goes to bad shape as in the present case wherein the outer leather cover has peeled off.  In view of this we are of the opinion that if OP is directed to replace the outer cover with a good quality leather free of cost within 30 days from the date of this order will be just and proper under the circumstance.  In case OP fails to repair the same as above he is ordered and directed to refund the cost of the said recliner chair i.e., Rs.82,501/- along with interest at 12% p.a., from 03.12.2017 till payment of the entire amount.  Further the complainant has been put to mental agony and strain for which we order OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages and further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigations expenses and Rs.500/- cost imposed by Hon’ble State Commission and answer Point No. 2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to replace the outer cover with good quality leather free of cost within 30 days from the date of this order. If OP fails to repair the same as above he is ordered and directed to refund the cost of the said recliner chair i.e., Rs.82,501/- along with interest at 12% p.a., from 03.12.2017 till payment of the entire amount. 
3. OP further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages and further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigations expenses and cost of Rs.500/-  which is imposed by the Hon’ble State Commission.
4. The OP is further directed comply the above order 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 25^th day of September 2020)

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:

Ex P1: Copy of the email correspondence

Ex P2: Copy of the performa invoice

Ex. P3: Photographs four in numbers to show defects in the furniture supplied by OP

Ex P4: Pen drive in that respect.

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

RW-1: Sri.Vijay Kumar Singh, Finance Manager of OP

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- NIL -

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT