PRESENT

                   Complainant in person.   

                   Opponent 1 & 2 Ex parte.                  

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President

1.                Heard  complainant, perused the complaint, Affidavit of evidence.

2.                The complainant purchased the sofa  cum bed  on 17.01.2016 from Godrej interio, Bhivandi showroom.  The said sofa was delivered by opposite party on 22.01.2016.

3.                The said article i.e. sofa was having defect and was not suitable for the purpose for which the same was purchased.

4.                The complainant lodged on-Line complaint for soloing the problem of the said sofa set.

5.                The complainant alleged that representative of opponent come after many days and informed that left side rod needs to be replaced.

6.                The grievance is made that no cognizance  was taken by opponent for redressal of the grievance.  Mr. Pradhyuman Mishra is Manager/Proprietor of Godrej interio  Bhivandi.

7.                The complainant alleged that, Opp. No. 2 Mr.Mishra kept on assuring that sofa will be repaired, however lastly failed to do so.

8.                The Opp. No. 1 is manufacturing company i.e. Godrej & Boyce situated at Vikroli.  The said company  has been awarded reputed ISO-9001 certificate  having international recognition.

9.                Both opponents i.e. manufacturer  (Opp.No.1) and seller Opp. No.2 remained absent despite  of service, hence Ex-parte order was passed against them on 25.01.2017.

10.              We have perused documents produced on record.  The complainant purchased sofa on 17.1.2016 and its delivery was accepted on 22.1.2016.

11.              The complainant stated in the affidavit of evidence that, it was noticed that left corner of the bed bent and one of the relative sustained injury, who was lying on the bed.

12.              Mr. Jagnarayan further stated that Opp. No. 2 assured for repair but failed to do so and spoke in rude manager, while denying the request for repair.

13.              The complainant alleged that, opposite party denied to repair sofa.  The opponent claimed extra amount and complainant received mail from Prachi-enterprises and a quotation of Rs.11,158.75. 

14.              The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 being manufacturer and dealer respectively were under an obligation to take immediate steps to render service to complainant, as the said sofa was not functioning properly.

15.              The evidence of complainant is supported by documentary evicence and opposite parties failed to appear and deny the allegations.

16.              In the result, directions to opponent to repair the sofa are necessary.  The opposite parties are Liable to pay compensation for deficiency in service.

17.              We pass the following order.

ORDER

1.       RBT  Consumer Complaint No. 49/2016  is partly allowed.

2.       The opposite parties are directed to repair or replace the Sofa of complainant, without charging any amount within one week after receipt of the said order.

3       The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.3,000/- to complainant.

4.        Copy of this order be sent to the both parties.