IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 10thday of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 25/2022 (filed on 03-02-2022)
Petitioner : Anilkumar P.G.
S/o.(late) Gopalakrishnan Nair,
Pulickal House, Villoonni P.O
Kottayam – 686 008.
(Adv. Thomas Sebastian)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : Zera Furniture,
St. Jude Nagar,
Kiliyanthra P.O.
Kannur Dist.- 670 706.
Rep. by its Proprietor.
Aneesh V. Mathew,
Vattathara House,
Kiliyanthara P.O.
St.Jude Nagar, Vallithodu,
Kannur – 670 706
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a sofa set from the opposite party for Rs.33,000/- on 27-12-21017 at Travancore Fest Kottayam. The said sofa set was delivered to the complainant at his residence on 2-01-218. The sofa set was covered with brown colour rexin and the trader had given a guarantee for ten years regarding the quality of the sofa set. The complainant noticed that the rexin cover of the sofa set was getting damaged and so the matter was intimated to the opposite party several times through his agent at Kottayam and on 26-10-20 the agents and the workers of the opposite party took back the said sofa set for examining the defects and promising to rectify the defects. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party did not rectify the defects or replace the sofa or to return the cost of the sofa.
Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to repay Rs.33,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
Though the notice was duly served the opposite party failed to appear before the commission and to file version. Hence the opposite party set ex-party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked exhibit A1 to A3.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant has succeed to prove the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and entitled for any reliefs?
According to the complainant he had purchased a sofa set from the opposite party on 27-12-2017 at Travancore Fest Kottayam and the same was delivered at his residence on 2-01-2018. Exhibit A1 is the order form issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant on 27-12-2017. Though the complainant submitted in the complaint and proof affidavit that he had paid Rs.33,000/ to the opposite party towards the price of the sofa, however on perusal of Exhibit A1 we can see that the complainant had paid only 1000 to the opposite party as advance. On a close perusal of Exibit A1 we can see that it was recorded in exhibit A1 that the balance amount is Rs.32,000/-. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove that he had paid Rs.33,000/ to the opposite party being the price of the sofa set.
The specific case of the complainant is that the said sofa set has become damaged and on 26-10-20 the agents and the workers of the opposite party took back the said sofa set for examining the defects by promising that they will rectify the defects. But the opposite party did not return the sofa as promised by their agent and workers. On perusal of Exhibit A1 it can be seen that there was an endorsement on its reverse side which is reproduced here as “RD 161 3+1+1 tkmt^m-skän (No.) Rexin Damage Bb-Xn-\m AXp ]cn-l-cn-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-thn Zera Furniture sâ staff IÄ Bb R§Ä Ct¶-Zn-hkw 26þ-10þ-2020 Xn¦-fmgvN CXp Xncn-¨p-sIm-p-t]m-Ip-¶p.”. Therefore, it is proved that the rexine of the sofa set became damaged and the said sofa set was taken by the agents of the opposite party to rectify the same on 26-10-20.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Opposite party has failed to provide the promised services to the complainant.
Hence, we are of the opinion that opposite party is grossly deficient in service. We allow the complaint and direct opposite party to return the sofa set without any defect within one month from the date of receipt of this order. . Additionally, Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony,
harassment and cost of litigation.
Opposite party is directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the Opposite party shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.10,000/- from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10th day of August, 2022.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Order form dtd.27-12-17 issued by opposite party
A2 series – photos (4 nos.) (subject to proof)
A3 – Copy of letter dtd.19-07-21 by petitioner to Station House Officer,
Gandhinagar Police Station.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
