The brief fact of the case as per Written Version (W.V.) filed by the O.P. is as follows-
In the W.V. the O.P. admitted that the complainant purchased Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) from them as per terms and conditions and as per terms and conditions the customer can raises their dispute which is resolved by the team of expert. The O.P. had denied that the said product was of low quality and there was neither any termite issue nor there was any manufacturing defect. The O.P. had delivered the product as per the request of the customer to the address of the customer’s friend, Rajeev- address- Eternis Flat No.-502, Building No. 06, Lodha enernis, Mumbai, Maharastra- 400093. The complainant had not using the product and the product was on his friend’s residence. The team of O.P. talked with Rajeev and after conversation with him Rajeev was ready for replacement but the complainant demanded heavy cost that showed complainant wanted to make money with a wrong intention from the O.P. The O.P. sent their carpenter to the residence of the complainant’s friend from Jodhpur but after that the complainant’s friend was not satisfied. Thereafter, the O.P. had offered about the replacement of the product through call but complainant had denied the replacement offer. As it was 3rd party product so it was not easy for the O.P. to refund the amount without vendor’s permission. After receiving the notice from the Consumer Commission on May, 2023, the O.P. had approached the complainant through phone calls and emails and offered a full refund of Rs. 12, 811/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven) only along with Rs. 6, 000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) only as compensation and asked the bank details to the complainant, as not to lose their valuable customer and also not to waste time of respective court but the complainant demanded high amount. The consumer was asking for heavy amount which was exceeding from total cost of the product. The complainant was not using the product as his friend wanted the replacement but complainant demanded heavy amount which showed that the intention of the complainant was not good. The O.P. requested to kindly dismiss this complaint.
List of documents filed by the O.P. No.1 are as follows-
- Copy of mail sent by the O.P. to the customer for carpenter visit.
- Copy of apologize mail by the O.P. to the customer for 02 joints open.
- Copy of mail by the O.P. to complainant for full refund and compensation.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.
Points for consideration
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
Decision with reason:-
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the complainant in full length.
The complainant resides in the jurisdiction of Siliguri under Darjeeling district. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consume Protection Act, 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.
At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P.s not only through his Written Deposition but also by producing documents.
The complainant placed an order for 01 (one) pc. of Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) vide order ID 88305 on 26.07.2020 through e-commerce portal of the O.P. Company (The Woodenstreet Furnitures Private Limited) and paid in advance an aggregated amount of Rs. 12, 811/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven) only inclusive of all taxes and charges to the O.P. The order placed by the complainant was duly confirmed by the O.P. and accordingly on 11.08.2020. and against that the O.P issued Tax Invoice, being No. SAKUM-20-21-509, dated 11.08.2020. Thus, this Commission does not hesitate to hold that as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the complainant is a very much consumer in this case.
In this instant case, the complainant placed an order for Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) vide order ID 88305 on 26.07.2020 through e-commerce portal of the O.P. Company and paid in advance an aggregated amount of Rs. 12, 811/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven) only inclusive of all taxes and charges, towards the total consideration price of the said study table. The payment was made through complainant’s Credit Card issued by Axix Bank Ltd., S.F. Road Branch, Siliguri, West Bengal. The said furniture had been described to be “finely crafted from premium quality Sheesham wood” on e-commerce portal of the O.P. and having a “01 (one) year warranty which covers manufacturing defects, inherent termites and borer issues”. The said study table was purchased for the complainant’s brother in law who resides in Mumbai and therefore, it was directed to be directly delivered to the end user in Mumbai, Maharastra. The order placed by the complainant was duly confirmed by the O.P. and accordingly on 11.08.2020 the said study table was delivered at the requested location in Mumbai, Maharastra but soon after delivery and installation, it was noticed within a couple of days that the study table had inherent manufacturing defects and of no use.
Thereafter, the end user reached out to the O.P. Company personnel and registered a formal complaint against the manufacturing defects, the false advertisements and several other issues that were discovered in said study tables. After repeated call, the O.P. agreed to register a formal complaint and on 21.08.2020 sent a company appointed/ registered carpenter to inspect and examine the defects and also carry out the necessary repairs. After thoroughly examining the study table, the carpenter admitted that there were serious manufacturing defects and the carpenter suggested the end user to reach out the O.P. for a replacement and in the mean while the carpenter hurriedly once again joined and pasted the different pieces of woods which had come out and left. Both the complainant and the end user were deeply dissatisfied with the service provided by the O.P. The O.P. personnel was also requested to replace the said study table however, the O.P. refused with an assurance that they would replace the said product if any other issue arise in future. In this context, on 23.08.2020 the O.P. sent a mail where the O.P. representative admitted to its guilt in unequivocal terms and that the furniture had manufacturing defects and offered to send a better technician to get it rectify within seven days from the date of its e-mail but no one turned out. Thereafter, the end user made follow up calls and sent e-mail to the O.P. but did not get any result.
In support of his defense, the O.P. submitted that the complainant purchased Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) from them as per terms and conditions and as per terms and conditions the customer can raises their dispute which is resolved by the team of expert. The O.P. had denied that the said product was of low quality and there was neither any termite issue nor there was any manufacturing defect. The O.P. had delivered the product as per the request of the customer to the address of the customer’s friend at Mumbai, Maharastra- 400093. The complainant had not using the product and the product was on his friend’s residence. The team of O.P. talked with the end user and after conversation with him the end user was ready for replacement but the complainant demanded heavy cost that showed complainant wanted to make money with a wrong intention from the O.P. The O.P. sent their carpenter to the residence of the complainant’s friend from Jodhpur but after that the complainant’s friend was not satisfied. Thereafter, the O.P. had offered about the replacement of the product through call but complainant had denied the replacement offer. As it was 3rd party product so it was not easy for the O.P. to refund the amount without vendor’s permission. After receiving the notice from the Consumer Commission on May, 2023, the O.P. had approached the complainant through phone calls and emails and offered a full refund of Rs. 12, 811/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven) only along with Rs. 6, 000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) only as compensation and asked the bank details to the complainant, but the complainant demanded high amount. The consumer was asking for heavy amount which was exceeding from total cost of the product. The complainant was not using the product as his friend wanted the replacement but complainant demanded heavy amount which showed that the intention of the complainant was not good. The O.P. requested to kindly dismiss this complaint.
In order to prove the case, the Complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the Written Complainant has specifically corroborated the complaint and has stated on which day he purchased the said Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) from the O.P. which was found defective after delivery and also narrated the date of payment. The Complainant has also stated on which day the end user meet the O.P. on behalf of him for solution. The Complainant has also stated in his evidence that the complainant communicated the O.P. several times but the O.P. did not get any result.
At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.
In view of above discussion and other materials on record we are of the view that this Commission has sufficient Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as a consumer dispute and thereby this case is maintainable.
As per evidence of the complainant it is very much clear that the said 01 (one) no. of Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) found defective even after repairing by O.P. So, it is the duty of the O.P. to supply a product with a good condition because when a consumer always buys a product from a reputed company like The Woodenstreet Furnitures Private Limited with an expectation for delivery of a good quality of product and service as well as better offerings from the company but in this instant case the company failed to provide a quality product and also failed to deliver his best services to his consumer. It is fact that the said 01 (one) no. of Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) was under the coverage of 01 (one) year warranty period and in this context it was the duty of the O.P. to deliver their best service to his consumer and this Commission has no doubt to hold that the O.P. did not provide their best service to his consumer.
So, as per the above discussion this Commission is of the view that there was a deficiency of services from the part of the O.P. In this instance case, the O.P. is liable. The complainant is entitled to get back the purchase amount of the said 01 (one) no. of Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) of Rs. 12, 811/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven) only from the O.P.
Hence, it is, therefore,
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 19/2020 be and same is allowed on contest against the O.P. (The Woodenstreet Furnitures Private Limited) with cost. The O.P. is liable in this case.
The O.P. is directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs. 12, 811/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven) only of the said 01 (one) no. of Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) within 45 (forty five) days from the date of this order, i.e., from 26.09.2024 failing which the complainant is entitled to get a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case, i.e., from 28/09/2020 till the realization of entire amount. The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for litigation cost to the complainant. The O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. within 45 (forty five) days from the date of this order. The O.P.s shall pay the entire amount through an account payee cheque within 45 (forty five) days from the date of this order, i.e., from 26.09.2024, in default the complainant will be at liberty to execute the award as per law.
The O.P. is entitled to get liberty to take back the said 01 (one) no. of defective Lyton Study Table (Walnut Finish) with their own cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.
