BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAPURTHALA.

Complaint No. 16 of 2022

Date of Instt. 11.03.2022

Date of Decision :28.10.2024

Anita W/o Kuldeep Singh aged about 55 years R/o 1167 Urban Estate, Kapurthala.

.........Complainant

Versus

Yuvraj Furnishers, Furniture Bazar, Kartarpur District Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)

Mrs. Rajita Sareen (Member)

S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member)

Present: Sh. Haranmol Singh, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Sharma counsel for OP.

Order

Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has preferred this complaint under Consumer Protection Act regarding the some furniture for her house which at the time of purchase of said furniture, OP declared it to be one of the best furniture available in the market and as such, complainant fell into the trap of the OP and agreed to purchase the furniture from OP for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/-. As per allegations of the complainant, OP had not issued any bill to the complainant and assured that the bill of the furniture he sent to complainant at the time of delivery of furniture. As per allegations in complaint, OP delivered inferior quality used material furniture to the complainant and complainant was shocked to see that very inferior quality material was used to make furniture and then the complainant had objected to the same to the executive of the OP but they had not resolved the issue. Complainant approached the OP alongwith furniture on 4/12/2021 but the OP refused to take up the matter and started to linger on the matter and did not exchange the furniture of the complainant and the complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP but all in vain. Complainant has prayed that opposite party be directed to exchange the furniture or to make payment of the furniture i.e. Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment and further opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as damages on account of harassment and mental tension. Further Ops be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,000/- as other expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed their written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and complainant has not come with the clean hands and there is no deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The present complaint is vague as the complainant has not disclosed any fact regarding the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the opposite party. On merits, opposite party denied all the facts of the complaint and stated that the sofa set in question was of very good quality as according to the price of the same. The opposite party has not committed any fraud. There is no deficiency in service. The wood used in Sofa Set is of good quality. As per the version of opposite party, the complainant has not disclosed any fault which is required to be repaired by the opposite party. The complainant only wanted to take his money back on the pretext of the inferior quality of sofa set. The sofa set is of very good quality. The complainant never objected the same to the executive of opposite party regarding the inferior quality of sofa set. The opposite party stated that he was ready to repair the sofa set if there is any fault but on asking the complainant, the complainant could not point out any fault in the sofa set but only wanted to take his money back for the reason better known to the complainant but complainant could not disclose the fault to be repaired by the opposite party. Even after the receipt of the notice of the complainant, the opposite party again offered the complainant to disclose any fault in the sofa set and get it repaired, but the complainant only wanted his money back. The opposite party is not in position to give the money back as the sofa set was prepared as according to design and instructions of the complainant.

3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.

4. To prove his case, complainant submitted affidavits Ex. CA, Ex. CB alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3.

5. On the other hand, OP submitted affidavit without any document.

6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. That as per the allegations of complainant, she purchased some furniture for her house i.e. a sofa set for a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite party. The furniture purchased was claimed to be best furniture available in the market by the opposite party but the opposite party delivered inferior quality used furniture to the complainant and complainant objected to the same to the executive of the opposite party but her issue was not resolved.

8. On the other hand, opposite party has denied all the allegations made by the complainant and has stated that the sofa set purchased by complainant was of very good quality. According to the price of the same as stated by the opposite party, the complainant has not disclosed any fault which is required to be repaired by the opposite party and just wanted to get back the money which the complainant paid to opposite party.

9. After considering the facts and discussion, this Commission finds no merits in allegations made in the complaint. The complainant has not proved his claim that what kind of defect was there in the sofa set and what needs to be done to get it set right. The opposite party was even ready to repair the sofa set even after receipt of the notice of complaint but complainant has not shown any kind of defect in the sofa set and has neither proved the same before this Commission. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the present complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence with no order as to costs.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated

28/10/2024

S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh Rajita Sareen Rajesh Bhatia

Member Member President