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

DATED 03^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

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

1. Order the OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with interest at 18% p.a.,
2. Direct the OP to deliver the furniture bed cum sofa worth Rs.25,000/- at no cost as per Diwali offer as the Ops failed to deliver the complete set of ordered product amounting to Rs.1,15,640/- even after the Diwali Festival.
3. Order the OP to replace the refurbished and outdated sofa with brand new sofa as committed.
4. Pass such other direction that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

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

It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a Rome, Italian leatherette recliner 3+1+1(seater sofa) worth Rs.1,15,640/- on 18.09.2023. The Ops have promised to deliver the sofa in no time citing that stocks are readily available and will be dispatched within three to four days. To the complainant’s utter surprise and dissatisfaction the Ops failed to deliver the entire set of sofa and on 20.09.2022 they delivered only three seater sofa in one quantity instead 3+1+1 seater sofas causing immeasurable annoyance among his family members. The complainant has expressed his dissatisfaction over emails and phone calls.

3. It is further grievance of the complainant that despite failing to deliver the sofa on the promised date the Ops have delivered a single seater sofa in one quantity to the complainant on 22.09.2022 which irked him.  Further the complainant has repeatedly requested the Ops that the balance set of single sofa be dropped-shipped as soon as possible.  But the Ops consigned an old refurbish, used and outdated singles seater sofa which was rejected by the complainant and the same was communicated to the OP via email on 27.09.2022 and the same was confirmed by the OP5 through email dated 28.09.2022.
4. During this period the complainant came across an advertisement given by the Ops for the Diwali festival on 01.10.2022 and 08.10.2022 offering an add on furniture set for the worth of Rs.25,000/-+ at no cost on purchase of Rs.1,00,000/- or more.  He has conveyed the same to the Ops on 14.10.2022. The Ops have failed to deliver the project despite one month entirely irrationally delay and an adequate level of service and they failed to fulfill the obligation.  The Ops neither informed the complainant about this offer in which he would have received a furniture worth Rs.25,000/- + for free.
5. It is further case of the complainant that the Ops have sent an email on 15.10.2022 and 19.10.2022 have replied with regrets admitting the excessive delay and inconvenience on their part.  They have once again stated that now the recliner is in stock and will be delivered in 3 to 4 days.  Unfortunately the Ops failed to fulfill their end of the agreement. The Ops have unfortunately supplied an old refurbished and out dated single seater sofa which was rejected by the complainant.  The complainant has lost valuable time and money due to the Ops reckless actions.
6. The complainant has paid obscenely high prices for the sofa set compared to the market rates and the Ops sent the product to the complainant using the falsely created brand image of Royal Oak to defraud the complainant. Despite full payment to the consignment and it caused the complainant mental anguish.  The Ops failed to deliver the standard service disclose and honour the Diwali offer, they have violated the complainant’s consumer right and they have engaged in fraud on the part and providing insufficient funds.  The Ops have deliberately mislead the complainant.  The Ops have broken promises at last the complainant sent a legal notice on 29.10.2022 and the Ops have issued the reply. The Ops have sold the product suppressing the non-availability of stocks and made false promises to deliver the product on time. Admittedly the product delivered was refurbished and not in good condition.  The complainant would have easily availed the Diwali festival offer, if he has waited booked product during the Dipavali festival season.  The non-performance and substandard service by the OP to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency in service, for which the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant.  When the Ops failed to comply with the demands of the complainant, the complainant has filed this complaint.  
7. In response to the notice, Ops have appeared and OP1 and 5 have filed their version. The Ops have admitted about the purchase of a Rome Italian leatherette  Recliner 3+1+1 seater sofa worth Rs.1,15,640/- at the consignment directly from the outlets of OP and the same was delivered to him on time.  The complainant has purchased the same on 18.09.2022 and the store manager has not promised the complainant on the delivery of the product.  The time of delivery of product will take 7 to 10 days based on the availability of logistical services. They have denied that they have promised the complainant to deliver the sofa set in no time.
8. The Ops further stated that 3 seater and 1 seater sofa was delivered together and the remaining one seater was delivered in later as the last piece in stock was damaged and a fresh sofa has to be shipped from the warehouse in Hyderabad.
9. It is the specific contention taken by the OP that, thus the one seater sofa delivered by them was not old refurbished used and out dated.  The said sofa was a shade lighter than the other two sofas that were delivered. The Ops have denied the other allegations made by the complainant.
10. It is further case of the OP that they have made an offer for the Diwali festival giving a furniture worth Rs.25,000/- at no cost on purchase of Rs.1,00,000/- or more.  There was no obligation on this OP to inform the complainant about any offer for a product which was going live in the coming month.  The offers are decided by the marketing team and the employee of the store would not have knowledge of the same. As the OP had to import the furniture from far and beyond it took time for the product to be on stock. As a result there was a delay in delivery of the product.  This OP has refused to take delivery of sofa when it was back on stock and demanded a refund of the entire amount.  The appeal of the complainant for refund was rejected as the complainant had already had the other two sets of furniture and the one seater sofa was readily available for delivery. The complainant has avoided the store manager’s calls when attempt of delivery was made by the OP team.
11. The Ops have also admitted about the legal notice issued by the complainant and reply given by them. Even after receipt of legal notice the customer care services team got in touch with the complainant. The complainant has rejected the services when they have offered to deliver the sofa. Hence there is no deficiency of service by this Ops. As mentioned above due to the damage in the remaining stock of the one seater sofa there was a delay in delivering the same to the complainant.  The complainant is using the Diwali sale as a reason for unlawful gain and receive a product for free.  The entire complaint made by the complainant is false and baseless and there is no deficiency in the service rendered by this OP. the complainant is wasting the time of this court. Hence Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 09 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP has been filed and OP relies on 01 document.
13. Heard the arguments of both the parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.
14. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

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

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

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

16. 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, evidence, written arguments and documents filed by both the parties.

17. It is undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased Rome Italian Leatherette Recliner 3+1+1 seater sofa set from the OP worth Rs.1,15,640/- from the outlets of OP on 18.09.2022.

18. It is the specific contention taken by the complainant that inspite of the payment made by the complainant and also promised by the OP that they will deliver the furnitures in no time have failed to deliver the entire set of sofas. On 20.09.2022 they delivered only three seater sofa in one quantity instead of 3+1+1 seater sofas causing immeasurable annoyance to the complainant and his family members. In view of this the complainant was disappointed since the Ops have failed to deliver the entire furnitures on the promised date. Again the Ops have delivered a single seater sofa in one quantity on 22.09.2022. After repeated demands and request about the balance set of single sofa unfortunately the Ops have supplied an old refurbished used and outdated single seater sofa on 22.07.2022 and the same was rejected by the complainant.  After that the complainant has demanded the Ops to avail the Diwali festival offerings where they are offering the same set of sofas with a furniture bed cum sofa worth Rs.25,000/- at no cost on purchase of Rs.1,00,000/- or more. The Ops have not accepted to avail the offer to the complainant.  The Ops have not at all informed the said Diwali festival offer to the complainant at the time of purchase of the aforesaid sofa set. If the Ops have informed about the offer the complainant would have waited for the said offer and he would have purchased the sofa set in the offer and he would have availed the free offer for purchasing the furnitures worth Rs.25,000/- if they purchased the furnitures for one lakh or more than 1,00,000/-. Inspite of repeated demands by sending mails and also by sending legal notice, the Ops failed to replace the sofa set which is an old, refurbished, used and out dated single seater sofa supplied by them.

19. In support of his contention the complainant has relied on Ex.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the receipt for payment of Rs.1,15,640/-, Ex.P2 is the copy of the email sent by the complainant to the respondent, Ex.P3 and 4 are the copies of advertisement of the OP,  Ex P5 and P6 is the copies of the emails sent by the complainant and reply received from the Ops, Ex.P7 is the reply to the legal notice, and Ex.P8 is the acknowledgment.

20. On the other hand in order to prove their contention the legal executive of the OP company namely Sri.Rakshith Bopanna has filed his affidavit evidence along with Ex.R1 the board resolution for authorization. He has clearly reiterated all the allegations made in the version.

21. It is the specific contention taken by the OP that the store manager has not promised the complainant on the delivery of the product as it will usually take 7 to 10 days based on the availability of logistical services. They were unable to deliver the last remaining one seater sofa along with other three seater sofa and one seater sofa as the last piece in stock was damaged and a fresh sofa had to be shipped from the ware house in Hyderabad. They have specifically denied that the last one seater sofa delivered was old refurbished used and outdated.  On the other hand, it is their case that the same was a shade lighter than the other two sofas that were delivered. They have specifically stated that there is no obligation on their part to inform the complainant about the Dipavali offer and they are not at all ready to give the offer to the complainant. They have further stated that they are not ready to replace the one seater sofa which is returned on the ground that it is defective sofa by the complainant. It is the specific case of the Ops that the complainant himself has refused to take the delivery of the sofa and he has demanded to refund the entire amount. Hence they have rejected the demand made by the complainant since the complainant has already had the other two sets of furniture and the one seater sofa was readily available for delivery. 

22. The complainant is seeking the relief for replacement of the refurbished and outdated sofa with brand new sofa. The complainant has not even received the said sofa and immediately returned to the Ops as he was not satisfied with the quality of the product.

23. It is clear from the very documents produced by the complainant that he has paid the entire amount immediately after the purchase of the furnitures on 18.09.2022 itself. The Ops have promised that they will deliver the furniture’s to his location in no time.  The complainant believing the words of the Ops has purchased the furniture’s.  After that the Ops have not supplied all the 3+1+1 seater’s sofas in one quantity. They have delivered the three seater one item on 20.09.2022, and after that they have delivered the single seater sofa to the complainant location on 22.09.2022.  after that they have tried to deliver the defective sofa to the complainant on 27.09.2022 and the complainant has immediately returned the same and by sending an email and the same was confirmed by the OP store manager.  After that the Ops have failed to supply or replace the refurbished and out dated sofa with brand new one, since the complainant has rejected the said item immediately when the Ops have tried to supply the said sofa for the first time.  When the complainant has paid the entire amount, it is the duty of the Ops to supply the quality items to the complainant who is a consumer. The complainant cannot accept the substandard, refurbished and out dated sofas after paying the fixed amount to the Ops. Inspite of repeated request through email and also through legal notice the Ops failed to replace the defective sofa and to deliver one seater recliner sofa to the complainant. The conduct of the Ops clearly discloses that they have failed to fulfil their promises after received the entire amount from the complainant and they have simply rejected the request of the complainant even though they have supplied defective sofa to the complainant which was not at all accepted by the complainant.

24. Under these circumstances, the complainant has clearly established the deficiency of service and negligence and the unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.  Hence the complainant is entitle for the relief claimed in the complainant. Therefore we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

25. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above the complaint is liable to the allowed in part and Ops are liable to replace the refurbished and outdated sofa with brand new sofa within 60 days from the date of this order, if they failed to replace the sofa with brand new sofa they are directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,729/- paid by the complainant towards this single seater sofa with interest at 10% p.a., from the date of payment till realization.  The complainant is also entitle for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and financial loss and the delay caused by the Ops.  the complainant is also entitle for Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops are directed to replace the refurbished and outdated sofa with brand new sofa within 60 days from the date of this order, if the OPs are  failed to replace the same Ops are directed to refund Rs.23,729/- paid by the complainant towards this single seater sofa with interest at 10% p.a., from the date of payment till realization. 
3. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. 
4. The Ops are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 03^rd day of AUGUST, 2023)

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

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