Date of filing : 15.07.2019

Date of Judgement: 02.03.2020

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon,ble Member

                    This petition of complainant  is filed under Section  12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 by Madhumita Kar Roy against opposite parties   (referred  as OP hereinafter ) (1) M/s. Renuka Furniture (2) M/s. Mitali Furniture (3) Jayanta Dey.

          Facts in brief are that the complainant  purchased one C. P. Tik Round Ball Model Devan Sofa cum Bed with milamind polish from Renuka Furniture by paying Rs. 23,000/- by cheque bearing no. 000074 dt. 15.11.2018 drawn on U.Co Bank, Howrah Branch. It is stated by the complainant that the cheque  issued by the complainant was received by OP No.3  on behalf of Renuka Furniture  and a receipt  was issued by OP No.3 acknowledging  payment of entire consideration amount. The complainant has stated that the cheque was encashed  in favour of one Mitali Dey who is the proprietor of  M/s. Mitali Furniture  and M/s. Renuka Furniture  and  presently running business  under the name and style of New Mitali Furniture  instead of Renuka Furniture.

          The complainant has stated that the item booked by her was delivered to her residence  on 17.11.2018 at 7.30 a.m. and on 18.11.2018 she noticed crack on the front leg of the said sofa cum bed and immediately informed the said matter to the OP No.3 over phone but due to her new born baby she could not be able  to reach the shop on 18.11.2018, however the complainant went to the shop room on the next day and get assurance from the OPs that a carpenter would be sent for taking necessary step and as per said assurance a  carpenter  namely Mr. Sagar having mobile no. 7003187079 attended  the residence of the complainant to repair the said  sofa cum bed but the complainant raised objection and claimed for replacement of the said sofa cum bed  with new one but the said claim  was ignored by OP and finding no  other alternative way the complainant sent demand  notice dt. 21.01.2019 and on receiving said letter the OPs assured  the complainant that they  would replace the same which had not been  translated  into reality  and, therefore the complainant  by filing the instant consumer complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to  replace the defective sofa cum bed, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation and other reliefs.

          Notices were served but the OPs did not contest the  case. So the case proceeded exparte vide order dated  16.10.2019.

          The complainant adduced evidence along with photocopies  of receipt dt. 15.11.2018 issued by OP No.3, pass book of the complainant, letter dt. 21.01.2019 postal receipt.

          In course of hearing Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant filed Brief Notes of Argument.

Decision  with reasons

          The complainant claimed to have purchased one sofa cum bed with certain specification from the Renuka Furniture, receipt dt.15.11.2018 filed by the complainant supports that the complainant paid Rs. 23,000/-  by cheque no. 000074 drawn on Uco Bank for purchasing one C.P.Tik Round Ball model  Devan sofa cum bed with  milimind polish to  one Jayanta Dey on 1.11.2018 who  issued  receipt under the head of Renuka Furniture. The complainant has claimed that the proprietor of Renuka Furniture  namely Mitali Dey  is also  running  business under the  name and style of  Mitali Furniture and M/s. New Mitali Furniture. It appears  from Bank passbook filed by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 23,000/- paid by her to the  OPNo.3 by cheque bearing no.000074 has been credited  in favour of Mitali Dey. It is,  therefore evident  that the Renuka Furniture  has some bearing with  Mitali Dey. It further appears  from money receipt that OP No.3 namely Jayanta  Dey being an employee of OP No.2  issued receipt.  Hence, being employer the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have the vicarious liability for such act committed by their employee i.e. the OPNo.3.

     It is further  evident  from the unchallenged evidence adduced by the complainant that  the complainant had paid entire  amount for the  sofa in respect of which she placed order.

          Under such state of affairs we are inclined to hold that the complainant is entitled to get relief  regarding replacement of Sofa cum bed.

          Regarding compensation, we do not find any ground to allow the same. However,  the Ops  compelled the complainant to file the instant  case and, therefore , liable to pay cost of litigation .

Hence,

                    Ordered

          That  CC/346/2019 is allowed  exparte  against  the OP Nos. 1 & 2  with cost and dismissed against  OP No.3. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to replace the sofa cum bed with  new one of same description within one month from the date of communication of this order to them. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation  within above mentioned period.