State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.Janardhan Rao S/O.Late Ramanaiah ... vs The Proprietor, Overseas Gallery, ... on 25 April, 2011
FA BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.855/2010 against C.C.No.18/2010, District Forum-III, HYDERABAD. Between: G.Janardhan Rao, S/o.late Ramanaiah Aged 61 years, Occ:Pvt.Employee, 10-2-289/98, Plot No.B-31, Flat No.502, Trendset Residency, Shanthinagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-28. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The Proprietor, Overseas Gallery, (Indians & Imported Furniture) 8-2-350/3, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. Respondent/ Opp.party. For the Appellant: Mr.G.Janardhan Rao, Party in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.N.Bhaskara Rao. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN (Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in CC No.18/2010 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on 02-1-2008 went to opposite party shop for purchase of a sofa set and the opposite party had shown him a 3+1+1 sofa set and assured that it was prepared with first quality teak wood. Believing his words, complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to opposite party and demanded a receipt for the said amount but opposite party casually mentioned the total cost of the said sofa set, advance paid and balance to be paid on a small piece of white paper and also on the back of their visiting card and handed over those to the complainant and assured that the selected sofa set will be delivered on the next day at the doorstep of the complainant. The complainant submitted that on 3-1-2008, opposite partys workman came to his residence for delivery of sofa set and he was shocked as it was not the one which was selected by him on the previous day at the opposite partys shop and it appeared to be old and used one with low quality of wood and some patch works here and there. As such he refused to take the delivery of the said defective sofa set but the opposite partys workers left the defective sofa set at the complainants residence stating that after informing their employer i.e. they will come and take it back. As such on 05-1-2008, the complainant drafted a complaint addressing Hyderabad District Consumer Forum and sent a copy to opposite party. After receiving the said complaint, opposite party approached the complainant and requested to wait for one or two weeks for replacement as all his workers went to their native places for Sankranti Festival. In good faith, the complainant waited for some time but the opposite party went on postponing the replacement on one pretext or the other.
Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 11-9-2008 demanding either to replace the defective sofa set with another good sofa set or to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest and compensation but the opposite party did not respond. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to replace the defective sofa set with a good quality sofa set or refund Rs.25,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs.
The opposite party in its version admitted that on 02-1-2008 the complainant purchased a 3+1+1 sofa set selecting a non teak fancy set having a foam cover and covered entire by rexine cloth. After bargaining the price was agreed upon as Rs.27,000/- and as the complainant was carrying only Rs.20,000/-, he paid the same towards part payment and promised to pay the balance of Rs.7,000/- upon delivery of the sofa set. Accordingly the sofa set was delivered on the next day and the complainant pleaded inability to pay the balance of Rs.7,000/- requesting for some more time. As a gesture of good will, opposite party considered his request and expected the complainant to pay the balance amount within one week. Opposite party contended that the complainant is evading payment on one pretext or the other and on the contrary filed this complaint with false allegations. Opposite party denied having received any notice from the complainant and stated that the complainant has doctored the courier receipt produced before the Forum and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced Exs.A1 to A7 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that he purchased a 3+1+1 sofa set from the opposite party on 02-1-2008 for an amount of Rs.32,000/- out of which he paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- evidenced under Ex.A1 and A2. It is his further case that on the next day opposite party sent his workmen with the sofa set but the complainant submits that the sofa set for delivery is an old and used one with low quality wood and several patches. He brought the same to the notice of the workmen who stated that they would inform their employer and come back to take the defective set. Thereafter he addressed a letter evidenced under Ex.A3 to the opposite party calling upon him to take back the old and used sofa set and demanded to return his money with interest and costs. He also got issued a legal notice dated 11-9-2008 evidenced under Ex.A5 but did not receive any reply.
It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant is still due an amount of Rs.7,000/- and has filed this false complaint to avoid the payment of the money and further contended that the sofa set that was delivered is of good quality and he has been using the same till date and also denies receipt of the legal notice. The opposite party further contends that the complainant ought to have immediately returned the sofa set in the same auto trolley, if indeed it was defective.
We observe from the record that the opposite party does not deny the sale of the sofa set to the complainant on 02-1-2008 and also admits that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- but contends that the complainant is still due an amount of Rs.7,000/-. Exs.A1 and A2 evidence this payment. The contention of the respondent that the complainant never returned the sofa set and therefore it should be construed that it is not defective is unsustainable taking into consideration Exs.A3 and A5 which are the letter and the legal notice respectively got issued by the complainant, calling upon the opposite party to take back the defective sofa set and refund the amount paid with interest. It is pertinent to note that there is no response from the opposite party to this legal notice and therefore to contend now that the complainant did not return the sofa set when they themselves did not respond to the complainants demand of taking back the sofa set, the act of the opposite party in not taking back the sofa set when the complainant has written within three days of the purchase of the sofa set evidenced under Ex.A3, construes deficiency in service and we are of the considered view that the opposite party should take back the sofa set and refund an amount of Rs.12,000/- as the complainant has kept the sofa set with him from 02-1-2008 till date.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and we direct the respondent to take back the sofa set and refund an amount of Rs.12,000/- within four weeks from the date of this order and also pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Sd/= PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.25-04-2011