State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Srm Agency vs Narra Gowri Prasad on 31 October, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 922 of 2023 (Against the order passed in C.C. No.262 of 2019 dated 02.09.2022 on the file of DCDRC, Coimbatore Tuesday, the 31st day of October 2023 SRM Agency Rep. by its Proprietrix Manju K. Jain 15-652, Mettupalayam Road Near Gujarath Mandir R.S. Puram Coimbatore- 641 002. .. Appellant / Opposite party Vs. Narra Gowri Prasad Villa No.35, Shoba Emarald Hari Sri Gardens Vedapatti Coimbatore-641 007 .. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party : M/s. R.Vasudevan Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant : M/s.M. Krishnaswamy The Respondent as Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order and allowed the complaint, in part. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore dated 02.09.2022 in C.C. No.262 of 2019. This appeal came before me for final hearing, today. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Respondent, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court. ORDER
THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court) The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he is an Ex Air force staff, retired as a Wing Commander. After his retirement he was working as a Director in a reputed Organisation at Gurgoan. Since, the complainant intended to settle down at Coimbatore, he purchased a Villa at Coimbatore on 19.04.2018. After purchasing the Villa the complainant planned to do the interiors for his Villa. Hence, he visited the opposite part's show room located at Mettupalayam Road and enquired about various brands of wardrobe. The complainant preferred the reputed brand 'ARANCIA' for his wardrobe because of its superior quality and asked the opposite party's sales staff Mr.Vijay Ganesh to send the details through email before he leaves to Gurgoan. Since the designs sent by the opposite party through emails were not of 'ARANCIA' brand, the complainant sent an email dated 13.07.2018 insisting the opposite party to send the quotations for 'ARANCIA' brand. Thereafter, the opposite party sent a quotation on 15.07.2018 mentioning the brand name 'ARANCIA' and the final quote for Rs.4,20,000/-. The complainant approved the quotation and paid Rs.3,36,000/- as advance, which is 80% of the total cost, to the opposite party. ON 17.10.2018, the complainant was informed by the opposite party that 3 Nos. of 'ARANCIA' bedroom wardrobes have been delivered to his villa and requested the complainant for the balance payment of Rs.84,000/-. Since the complainant noted some deficiencies in the approved designs, as a protest he paid Rs.50,000/- and agreed to release the balance amount of Rs.34,000/- after rectifying the defects. Subsequently, on 30.10.2018 the complainant released the balance payment also. Thereafter, the complainant shifted to his villa but within few days, he found the shelves of all the three wardrobes were sagging badly on regular usage. Inspite of the complaint about the said defects made by the complainant in person to the opposite party, they neither responded nor rectified the same. On enquiry, the complainant found that the opposite party has cheated him by supplying fake products in the name of 'ARANCIA' brand. The request of the complainant for replacement of wardrobes with the original 'ARANCIA' branch was not considered by the opposite party. The opposite party with a malafide intention had cheated the complainant by supplying a duplicate product. Hence, the complainant was put to mental agony and sufferings, besides monetary loss which the opposite party is liable to compensate. The complainant sent a legal notice on 27.03.2019 to the opposite party, which was replied by the opposite party on 16.04.2019 denying the allegations and threatening to sue with a defamation case against the complainant. Thus, the opposite party had committed deficiency in their service and had adopted unfair trade practices, thereby causing financial loss, mental agony, ridicule and embarrassment to the complainant and is therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission for a direction to the opposite party, to remove the defective fake goods and replace it with original 'ARANCIA' brand wardrobes or else refund the amount of Rs.4,20,000/- along with an interest of 12% till the date of realization; to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and sufferings caused by him to the complainant due to his unfair trade practice; and to pay the cost of the complaint.
3. Though notice was served on the opposite party, they have failed to appear before the District Commission and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte. Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.4,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of payment; to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant; and to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.
4. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.
5. Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that at the request of the respondent/complainant for a quotation for wardrobe, the appellant/opposite party sent a quotation through e-mail for supply of 'Fine Living brand wardrobe'. The respondent/complainant accepted and confirmed the quotation and designs as per attachment for total consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. The cost of 'ARANCIA' is much more than 'Fine Living Wardrobes'. There has been mis-appreciation of evidence and mis-application of the provisions of law and misunderstanding of the invoices of the opposite party by the District Commission. The respondent/ complainant has been using the wardrobe for the past 5 years and has not pointed out any defect in the wardrobe supply and if it has been pointed out, the appellant/opposite party would have rectified at the earliest. Hence, the allegations of the respondent/ complainant are not sustainable. Hence prayed this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and to remit the matter back to District Commission to hear the matter afresh, by affording them an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
6. When the case came up before this Commission on 27.10.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant/opposite party, this Commission felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant/opposite party, to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit. However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, this Commission imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid of this Commission. The said cost was also paid today and since the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with, the appeal is allowed and the complaint is remanded to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore in C.C. No.262/2019 dt.02.09.2022 and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.
Both parties are directed to appear before the District Consumer Commission, Coimbatore on 27.11.2023 for further proceedings. The appellant/opposite party is directed to file Vakalat, Written Version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on the same day itself.
The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.
Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant/opposite party before this Commission.
R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2023