State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.Krishnaiah S/O G.Ramachandraiah vs M/S Best Buy Living Rooms on 6 August, 2012
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.253 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.33 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD Between: G.Krishnaiah S/o G.Ramachandraiah aged about 50 years, Occ: Business r/o H.No.18-1344, Vysya Colony, Ashok Nagar, Miryalaguda Nalgonda District Appellant/complainant A N D M/s Best Buy Living Rooms Plot No.542, Road NO.12, Banjara Hills Hyderabad-034, rep. by its Managing Director Respondent/ opposite party Counsel for the Appellants M/s K.Visweswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Not claimed QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The appellant purchased sofa set on 10.11.2008 from the respondent. The sofa set is represented to be made with quality cushion and good quality leather and it would last for about 28 years. The consideration for the sofa set is `38,000/-. The sofa set was delivered at the house of the appellant on 10.12.2008. the appellant used the sofa for a month without there being any problem and thereafter the layer of the Rexene utilised in the sofa is said to have begun to peel off gradually and the appellant stated to have been unable to use the sofa. The appellant stated to have requested the respondent either to repair the sofa or replace it with a good quality defective free sofa and the respondent stated to have postponed it on one pretext or the other. The appellant could not pursue the matter from 10.7.2009 to 8.10.2009 as he had been to the UK.
3. After returning to India the appellant stated to have requested the respondent for several times to repair or replace the sofa and on 4.11.2009 he got issued notice to the respondent which was received by the respondent on 7.11.2009. There was no response from the respondent to the notice.
4. The respondent resisted the claim contending that the appellant failed to produce the bill evidencing purchase of sofa set and the document filed by the appellant is quotation and not the bill. It is contended that the appellant can file complaint only basing on bill and not on quotation as also that no warranty was provided by the respondent to the appellant for the sofa set. The appellant had not filed specifications of article regarding the quality of the article. It is contended that the notice was issued one year after purchase of the article and that the appellant had not adduced evidence to show that he had taken proper care and maintenance to keep the sofa in good and fit condition. As per the version of the appellant, the sofa set was left without any proper care for three months when the appellant had been to the UK.
5. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A5. The respondent had filed his affidavit and no documents.
6. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that no warranty or guarantee was provided for the sofa set and that the document produced by the complainant is a bill and not a quotation.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreceiation of facts or law?
8. The dispute in regard to purchase of the sofa set by the appellant is cleared by the bill dated 10.11.2008 which the respondent styled as quotation. The District Forum observed that the document is a bill and not quotation as it contains clear picture of date of sale, delivery date and details of the amount collected by the respondent. The amount mentioned in Ex.A8 is Rs.38,000/- as sale consideration for the sofa set.
The respondent cannot contend that it did not sell the sofa set to the appellant.
9. The appellant has got issued notice to the respondent complaining that the sofa set suffered defect as the Rexene began to peel of gradually. In the notice dated 4.11.2009 the appellant has stated the defect of the sofa as under:
My client further states that, he has used the said Sofa for a month without any problem and after completion of the one month period, the layer of the Rexene utilized in the sofa is peeling out gradually.
Because of the layer peeling out, my client is unable to utilize the said sofa and putting the same as a waste item.
As a matter of fact, my client has purchased the said Sofa as he is very much dire need of the same as he performed his daughters marriage and to utilize the same whenever the guests visited his house. Because of the said inferior quality of sofa set supplied by you, the entire aspiration of my client went in vain.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent had not given any response to the request made by the appellant for several times either to repair the sofa set or replace it with a sofa set of standard quality and that there was no response for his request whereby he was compelled to get issued notice on 4.11.2009 to the respondent. The respondent had not given response to the notice.
11. It is an admitted fact that the sofa was not provided with any warranty or guarantee. The appellant had been to the UK for about three months and during the period of his absence the sofa was not taken care of. However, the attitude of the respondent denying the very sale of the sofa and not responding to the request made by the appellant to repair the sofa and not giving reply to the notice of the appellant cumulatively would establish deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The District Forum has not considered the deficiency ins service on the part of the respondent form the time the appellant reported problem with the sofa till he got issued notice to the respondent.
12. The appellant in his affidavit had specifically stated that the respondent had supplied a sofa of inferior quality.
About the defect in the sofa the appellant had stated in his affidavit that:
I further submit that, the inferior quality of the Sofa is provided to me even though the huge amount of Rs.38,000/- is charged for the same saying that the same is does have the good quality cushion and leather and the same is a long durability article. As such, the question of non-disclosure of the quality of the article does not arise. The non-attendance of the opposite party for the repair work despite the article develops the defects within a month from the date of purchase, is squarely amounts to the deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party.
13. Taking into consideration of totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent had rendered deficient service by not attending to the repairs of the sofa and not giving response to the request made by the appellant. In the circumstances, we hold the appellant entitled to the repair of the sofa and an amount of Rs.7,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental tension and hardship.
14. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of he District Forum. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the respondent to repair the sofa set and pay an amount of `7,000/- and costs of `3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.06.08.2012 KMK*