Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Complainant himself
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :30.11.2018
Date of Disposal of the case :15.12.2022
(2)
Final Order / Judgment dtd.15.12.2022
Complainant Goutam Dutta filed the present complainant against the aforesaid opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and prayed for replacement of defective dining table with new similar description which shall be free from any defect or for suitable repairing of the dining table, cost of the case and compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000.00(Rupees Five thousand).
It is the allegation of the complainant that he had purchased one dining table from the OP on consideration of Rs.5,200.00(Rupees Five thousand two hundred) but after expire of one month some screws of the said table were unfolded and some were broken down. Moreover, pasting of the said table was totally damaged. Complainant requested the OP to replace the aforesaid furniture but he denied the same on the plea that said product belonged to china product. Said furniture was examined by another carpenter and he issued a certificate to that effect. On 14.11.2018 complainant issued a letter to the OP describing the all defects but OP did not take any action. Aforesaid conduct of the OP is gross negligence on his part, hence the complainant file this case.
After service of notice, OP appeared in this case. He filed written version before this commission and denied the entire allegations and further stated that there is no deficiency in service.
Trial
During trial complainant Goutam Dutta filed affidavit in chief.
OP not yet produced any evidence i.e. affidavit in chief nor filed any documents.
Documents
Following documents have been produced from the side of complainant:
- Original purchased document dated 14.04.2018 issued by Ananya.
- Original purchase voucher dated 14.04.2018.
- Expart report i.e. report of Jibon Paul.
- Written request of the complainant dated 24.11.2018.
- Postal Receipt dated 26.11.2018.
(3)
Brief Notes of argument.
Complainant in support of his case not yet filed Brief Notes of Argument.
Argument
Complainant argued before this commission that he purchased the aforesaid articles from the OP but within one month it was noticed that product was defective. He made several communications with the OP but he did not take any steps and lastly he compelled to file this case. He prayed for replacement of the article and other reliefs.
Decision with Reasons
It is the allegation of the complainant that he purchased the aforesaid articles from OP but within one month it was noticed that product was defective. He made several communications with the OP but he did not take any steps. He prayed for replacement of the article and other reliefs.
On perusal of purchase bill dated 14.04.2018 we find that complainant purchased one STL Dining M/S, valued at Rs.5,200.00(Rupees Five thousand two hundred).
Complainant stated that he paid full amount as the value of aforesaid product. On perusal of purchase bill we find that aforesaid product has purchased on 14.04.2018. On perusal of written communication of the complainant dated 24.11.2018 we find that complainant requested the OP for necessary repairing of the disputed furniture.
OP in his W/V stated that complainant purchased the aforesaid product on his own risk. There was no warranty of the said product and accordingly complainant is not entitle to any relief.
On perusal of purchase bill we find that product was purchased on 14.04.2018. On perusal of report of Mr. Jibon Paul we find that on examination of the product he found some major defects in the product which are not natural. The plea which has been taken by the OP that complainant purchased the product at his own risk is not acceptable in the eye of law. OP could not give satisfactory explanation in his W/V as to why aforesaid defects were found in the said product immediately after purchasing of the same.
Having regard to aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that aforesaid act of the OP is nothing but deficiency in service and OP should be asked to repair the same to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, evidence of records and documents on record we find that complainant has able to establish that the aforesaid products bears manufacturing defects. So necessary direction should be
(4)
given to OP for repairing of aforesaid product. In the result present case succeeds. Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on the context against OP with cost of Rs.1000.00(Rupees One thousand) to be paid by OP in favour of the complainant.
OP is directed to repair the disputed product which was sold to the complainant on 14.04.2018 as per satisfaction of complainant within one month from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
OP is further directed to pay Rs.2000.00(Rupees Two thousands) to the complainant as compensation for his physical harassment and for her mental pain and agony within one month from this order failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as free of cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to OP for compliance.
