Complainant:

Sri. A. Nagaraja Naidu
S/o. Sri. Srinivasulu Naidu
Aged about 50 years
No.189, 7th Main
Srinivasanagar
BSK 1st Stage
Bangalore- 560 050


/vs/




Opposite Party:


M/s. Quality Carpenter’s Paradise
No.180, Banashankari 3rd Stage
Outer Ring Road
Opp. to State Bank of Mysore
Hosakerehalli
Bangalore- 560 085
R/by its Manager
Sri. Sathish

O R D E R



SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:


This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for replacement of the sofa set with compensation of Rs.50,000/-, costs and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a sofa set corner L type imported fully covered on 19/06/2005 by paying a sum of Rs.27,000/- from the Op and the Op has issued a proforma invoice dated 19/06/2005 by virtue of such purchase. The Op has issued a Guaranty to the sofa set towards termite problem and manufacturing defects in the invoice itself. The complainant has noticed a defect in leather in one of the pieces of Sofa Set (out of 4 pieces) wherein leather appeared with wrinkles and upper layer of leather peeled off and the same has been brought to the notice of the Op. The OP visited the complainant’s residence and confirmed that it was a manufacturing defect in the leather and assured that they will rectify the defect earliest.

The complainant visited their show room many times requesting the Op to rectify the manufacturing defect. The Op has not rectified the manufacturing defect and therefore left with no other alternative he has personally issued a legal notice on 30/04/2008 requesting the Op to rectify the manufacturing defect. The OP after the receipt of the legal notice, has visited complainant house on 21/05/2008 and assured that the manufacturing defect will be rectified soon but not taken any action thereafter. The complainant again reminded Op over telephone on 04/06/2008 and requested to rectify the defect. The OP visited the complainant house and promised to rectify the manufacturing defect at the earliest and also stated that the delay is due to non availability of materials and requested one month time to rectify the defect.

The complainant again reminded to OP over telephone on 10/07/2008 to do the needful immediately. Inspite of reminding they have not taken any action on this issue till date. The complainant has finally issued legal notice on 28/10/2008 requesting the OP to rectify the defect. Inspite of receipt of reminder notice the OP did not visit the complainant’s house for rectification of manufacturing defect till today. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Notice was sent to the Op under RPAD, the same was served on Op but Op remained absent and no one represented. Hence Op placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit with copies of documents and photos. Heard arguments.

The complainant specifically on oath stated about the purchase of sofa set and one of the sofa set leather became wrinkles and the upper layer of the leather peeled off. When it was brought to the notice of the Op, Op visited the complainant house and assured of rectifying the same. But thereafter Op never bothered to rectify the same or to replace. The Op never responded to the legal notice issued by the complainant. The photo produced by the complainant clearly discloses that the upper layer of the sofa is full of cracks and at some place it is peeled off. Within six months from the date of its purchase, the condition of the sofa has been worsening. The copy of the legal notice and the receipt discloses that the OP has received the notice issued by the OP. The Op has given two years guarantee to the said product. When the Sofa has become useless within six months, it is the bounden duty of the OP either to rectify it or to replace the sofa with new one. But after disposing of the sofa set, the OP never bothered to attend to the defects of the sofa. The complainant has paid Rs.27,000/- to the said product. This sort of an act on the part of the Op definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

These facts have not been specifically denied by the OP. Even though the notice was served, it remained absent and failed to submit its statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the Op, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to replace the sofa set purchased by the complainant within 40 days from the date of this order.

Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation.

In the event, if the Opposite party fails to replace the sofa set within the period as ordered by this forum, Opposite party is directed refund an amount of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from 19/06/2008 to till the date of realization and the complainant is directed to hand over the sofa set at the time of receiving the amount.