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

DATED 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP to direct them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation of the furniture and the mental agony which the complainant has suffered.

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

The OP is doing business of manufactures, retailers, service and warranty providers of the furniture. Complainant has booked a dining table worth Rs.20,000/- with the OP at Dommasandra on 29.11.2023 as a gift to his daughter’s birthday function held on 14.12.2023.  The product was delivered on 05.12.2023.  After assembling the table, complainant came to know that the product was different from what he orders, so he requested for replacement of the same. Initially the site engineer of OP called up his ware house manager and tried to negotiate with the complainant, but the complainant was not agreed, hence OP agreed for replacement within 3 to 4 working days.

3. After that the complainant has not received any calls/messages from store manager.  Again the complainant has called the store manager on 12.12.2023 and reminded him the birthday function that on 14.12.2023 at 6 pm.  Even at that time he has informed the complainant that the replacement product will be delivered on 14^th at 2 pm. Said Sanjay has again confirmed the delivery of the product again on 13.12.2023.  After that there were no messages.  Again the complainant has called another person named Vasudev Yadav who was a sales person while booking the furniture and requested him to inform the Store Manager Sanjay that this complainant is waiting for his call. Again the complainant has called back but they had no answer on the delivery.
4. On 16.12.2023 the complainant went to the store for enquiry, there was another person with Sanjay whom he informed. Again he rang up to a warehouse guy and he told that the product will be delivered within three days and it will be painted and return. Again the complainant went to the other shop of Royaloak furniture, Sarjapur, where he was taken by Vasudev Yadav to show the product before booking.  The complainant has checked the product and he came to know that the product which was delivered is slightly different from what he saw, so repainting is not a good option.  Hence the OP have given another option to cancel the product from the factory outlet and book from the OP.  As per their instructions he cancelled the product on 19.12.2023 he got a call from the OP customer care stating that there is no stock available in the warehouse and it will take more than 10 days to get it deliver from Chennai.
5. After that the complainant has informed the OPs that he has cancelled the product by sending an email.  Again the sales representative informed the complainant that he will give a discount of Rs.1,000/- and they will delivered the product in 10 days. The complainant has denied the said offer.   On 21.12.2023 the OP person called him stating that he had given permission to deliver the product.  At that time the complainant has informed him that he already cancelled the product and requested for refund. At that time of the said person informed the complainant that there is no policy of refund and only thing he can do is replacement.  After that there is no reply from the OP customer care on refund till date. Hence this complaint is filed.
6. After filing of the complaint, notice issued to OP. OP appeared through authorized representative and filed version. The contentions taken by the complainant is that except the fact that the complainant has booked and purchased the consignment directly from the outlet of the OP and the same was delivered to him on time.  This OP have supplied the furniture which was choosen by the complainant after giving all information about the product.  The OP company will always give preference to their customers and under any circumstances they will not do any injustice to their customers.  
7. As per the policy of the OP company refund or replacement is not possible for a product used.  This OP in a respectful manner expressed their willingness to service the product. Despite their willingness to service the product the complainant remained adamant on either replacement or refund for the product.  Hence OP prays for dismissal of the complaint as they have made sincere effort to resolve the issue through replacement but it was strongly rejected by the complainant.
8. The complainant in order to prove his complaint filed his affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.P1 to P6. On the other hand the authorized person of the company has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.R1.  
9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.
10. The following points do arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

11. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:-Affirmative

      Point no.2:- Affirmative in part.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

12. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments and documents.
13. The complainant in order to prove his contention has filed his affidavit evidence by reiterating all the allegations made in the complaint and relied on exhibits P1 to P6. On the other hand authorized representative of the OP filed his affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.R1.
14. It is undisputed fact that the complainant has booked the furniture i.e., the dining table on 29.11.2023 as a gift for his daughter’s birthday furniture held at home on 14.12.2023.  the complainant has produced the quotation Ex.P1 and as per the quotation the complainant has ordered for Mourya wooden dining table six seater and the cost of the dining table was Rs.20,000/- after discount and after collection of all the charges. After that the OPs have delivered a wrong product on 05.12.2023.  The complainant has produced the photographs of the dining table which was ordered as per Ex.P3.  So also the complainant also produced the photo of the dining table delivered and it is clear that both are different.
15. When the complainant has informed the Store Manager and also visited the shop and contacted them continuously till 19.12.2023. The OPs refused either to replace the product or refund the amount.
16. On the other hand the only contention taken by the OP is that their company has no policy either to refund or replacement of the product when once it is delivered to the customer.
17. When the very product delivered by the OPs are entirely different from the product which are booked by the complainant the OP cannot force the complainant to receive the product by taking the contention that there is no replacement to refund of the money for the product delivered as per the policy of the company.
18. The complainant has relied at Ex.P2 to show the communication between the complainant and customer care and also the sales and the store manager of the OP.  The OP have offered Rs.1,000/- to the complainant for delay in delivery of the product and also requested the complainant to accept their apology and also sought permission to deliver the new product.  Instead of delivering the new product the OPs remained silent without responding to any of the calls made by the complainant and finally they refused either to replace the product or to refund the amount and thereby the OPs have committed deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice.
19. The complainant being a customer cannot receive the product which he was not booked. When the OPs have committed the deficiency of service and practice unfair trade practice they are bound to refund the amount against their company policy. Under these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for the relief. Hence, we answer point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 affirmative in part.  
20. Point no.3:-.  In view of the above discussions, the complaint is liable to be allowed in part. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed refund of Rs.20,000/- being the cost of the table along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization.
3. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards  financial loss and also mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. The OP is further directed to pay entire amount within 60 days from the date of this order, if the OP failed to refund the amount, the amount of  Rs.20,000/- will carry interest at 12% p.a., after expiry of 60 days  till realization of the amount.
5. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 04^th  day of DECEMBER 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :