Haryana

StateCommission

A/824/2019

PROKONSUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIY FURNITURES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SARTHAK GUPTA

04 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.824 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 18.09.2019

                                                          Date of order: 04.05.2023

 

ProKonsul, Sole Proprietorship of Mr.Gaurav Sundaram, EA-6, Ground Floor, D-Block, Tata Primanti,Sector-72,Southern Peripheral Road, Gurugram 122018.

…..Appellant

Versus

DIY Furnitures Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Mr.AnantMaloo, Registered address at Surajkala 2-B, Raj Colony, near Naranpura Xing, Ahmedabad 380013.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Krishan Singla,Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.824 of 2019has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.08.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon(In short Now “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2019, which was allowed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased 2 Boston two seatersofas and one libby one seater from the opposite party through online. On 29.04.2018, the furniture was delivered at the house of the complainant and entire price of all these articles Rs.84000/- was paid to the opposite party. However various furniture items were received in damaged condition. The wood work was also patchy from various places.  On 25.05.2018, the OP picked up the libby sofa from his premises for its repair, but, OP failed to repair the same. The dispute with regard to other two 2 Boston two seater sofa, the complainant made his intentions loud and clear that the same was also beyond remedy and hence, sought to return the same, but, OP refused to take back the said sofas and refund hard earned money of the complainant. Faced with this situation, he got served a legal notice dated 03.10.2018 to the OP, but in reply, OP denying all the allegations, however only admitted to refund the amount of Rs.22,678/- for the Libby Sofa.  After various requests, the OP partly relented and refunded the amount of Rs.22,678/- to the complainant on 19.11.2018.  the complainant requested the OP to refund remaining amount of Rs.61,322/-, but to no avail. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

3.      OP was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.07.2019.

4.      After hearing the counsel for the complainant, the learned District Commission, Gurgaonhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 20.08.2019, which is as under:-

“With these observations, the complaint is allowed directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.61,322/- of 2 Boston Two-Seater Sofas to the complainant subject to return of the said defected Sofas in the office of the opposite party by the complainant within one month from the date of receiving the order of this Forum.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      These argumentswere advanced by Sh.Sarthak Gupta,learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Krishan  Singla, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of appealas well as original record of District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the opposite party has delivered shabby and already damaged furniture to the complainant, which was booked through online mode. The opposite party has taken back the libby sofa for repair and refunded an amount of Rs.22,678/- to the complainant on 19.11.2018 but did not repay the price of Boston two seater sofa sold for Rs.61322/-. The OP intentionally did not collect the bostontwo seater sofa from the house of the complainant. As such, the impugned order should be modified to the extent that the OP be also directed to refund the amount of Rs.61,311/- with interest from the date of payment till the date of realization and take back the defective sofas lying with him.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the allegations raised in the complaint  arebased upon assumption and presumption while there was no scope for the same under the C.P . Act and the complainant’s appeal is liable to be dismissed Even otherwise also, no expert opinion has been lead on record to show that the product used by the complainant were defective. The products were not sent to any laboratory  or any expert for the analysis and in absence of it, it cannot be said that the complaint can survive rather for want of all this it was liable to be dismissed.

9.      Perusal of the record shows that since, the sofas purchased by complainant were not according to the specification which all was assured and displayed on the website of the OPand there were issues relating to the design and aesthetics of the furniture items and wood work was also patchy and damaged from the various places.  It was the responsibility of the opposite party to refund the costs of furniture articles within the stipulated time, when the articles were found to be damaged.  The OP has already refunded the amount of Rs.22,678/- to the complainant for the libby sofa on 19.11.2018 but has not refunded the amount of Boston sofa of Rs.61322/-.  

10.    Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint observingthat  OP would refund the amount of Rs.61322/- of 2 bostontwo seater sofas to the complainant subject to return of the said defected sofa in the office of the OP by the complainant. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant subject to the condition imposed upon him. The learned District Commission has committed no illegality while passing the order dated 20.08.2019 which is  fully balanced.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.              Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to record room.                  

 

4^rdMAY, 2023                                                                                    S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)