BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 18^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

           1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OP.          

1. Direct the OP to refund the product cost and repair charges of Rs.10,300/-.
2. Along with compensation /damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, hardship and correspondence expenses.
3. Direct OP to understand the customer grievance in friendly manner.  Respond on time with resolution instead of leaving customer in between after selling the product.    

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has purchased IRIS Coffee table from the OP by paying Rs.7,500/- on 26.02.2020.  But, later on some cracks and problem with legs were developed.  The complainant had approached the OP for replacement of the legs.  But, OP demanded Rs.4,000/- towards cost of the repairs and ultimately carried the repair work by accepting Rs.2,800/-.

3. It is further case of the complainant that once again he found cracks in the legs of the table on 25^th August, 2021.  But, OP neither replaced the table nor refunded the amount despite repeated requests.  Failure on the part of the OP not attending the request amounts to deficiency of service.  The complainant was put under mental agony.  Hence, this complaint.

4. After receipt of notice, OP appears and files version.  The OP contends that complaint is baseless and no tenable.  The complainant has approached IRIS coffee table for Rs.7,350/- on 29.06.2019 not for Rs.7,500/-.  The mails of the complainant do not disclose the specific defects in the product.  After receipt of mails of the complainant dated 25.08.2021, the OP gave reply denying all the allegations.  There is no deficiency of service.  The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on two documents.  The affidavit evidence of legal head of OP has been filed with one document. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

8. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

9. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the affirmative.

       Point No.2: Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

10. Point Nos.1 and 2:  These two points are co-related to each other, therefore, these two points have been taken into common consideration to avoid repetition of discussion.
11. It is admitted and proved that the complainant has purchased IRIS table under invoice Ex.R.1.  Ex.R.1 indicates that the cost of the product involves in this case was Rs.7,350.16.  Whereas the complainant has produced Ex.P.1 showing cost of the product was Rs.7,500/-, but discount of Rs.787.82 was given.  Under such circumstances, the cost of table purchased by the complainant can be construed as Rs.7,350/-.  Ex.P.11 further indicates that the complainant paid repair charges of Rs.2,800/-. But, complainant has not produced receipt having paid this amount.  Ex.P.2 indicates that there were cracks in the IRIS table.  The complainant has purchased the table on 29.06.2019.  But, the cracks were developed without any fault of the complainant.  Even though, OP contends that the cracks were developed due to wrong, improper use of table.  The burden lies on the OP to prove this fact.  But, this is not proved by the OP.
12. The complainant has not proved exchange of E-mails by filing certificate Under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.  It is the duty of the OP to supply good quality product to the customer, paid the price of it.  It has been proved, the product supplied by OP found defective.  Therefore, the OP is liable to pay cost of table to the complainant, as complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP.
13. The complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.  When the cost of product itself is Rs.7,350/- and complainant has used the table for a period of 2 years from the date of purchase and complainant has not lead any foundation for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.  The claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is not only exorbitant and without any base.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,000/- as compensation.  This complaint has been filed by the complainant inperson and no court fee is recovered from the complainant. Therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.7,350/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- subject to return of the product to the OP.
14. Point No.3:-In view of the discussion referred above, complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The OP is liable to refund Rs.7,350/- with compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on receipt of the product i.e. IRIS table.  The complainant is liable to return this table to the OP.  We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall refund Rs.7,350/- and pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant and complainant shall return the IRIS table to the OP.
3. Both parties are directed to comply this direction within 30 days from this date.  
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18^th day of March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-