State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Bhavesh Goswami vs Harishchandra Narayanrao Arya on 7 February, 2018
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. A/15/938
(Arising out of order dated 19/03/2014 passed by Addl.Mumbai Suburban District
Forum at Bandra in CC/2013/62)
Mr.Bhavesh Goswami,
Ex-Director of
M/s.Oren Kitchen Appliances Pvt.Ltd.,
Oren Kitchen World, Viviana Mall,
S-8, R City Mall, LBS Marg,
Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400 086. .....Appellant/s
Versus
[1] Harishchandra Narayanrao Arya,
[2] Ameeta Harishchandra Arya,
Both r/at : 9B/1101, Powai Cosmopolitan
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Rambaug,
Opp.Powai Lake, Near Powai Police Station, ..Respondent/s
Mumbai 400 076.
BEFORE: Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.D.R. Shirasao, Judicial Member
PRESENT:
For the Appellant(s) : Advocate Mr.Kiran Patil
For the Respondent(s) : Advocate Mr.Pritam Runwal
ORDER
Per Mr.D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member [1] Being aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District at Bandra, Mumbai in consumer complaint no.62/2013 on 29/03/2014 directing the opponent to do all necessary repairs of modular kitchen provided by the opponent to the complainants and to pay compensation to the complainants, opponent has preferred this appeal.
[2] Brief facts of the case are as under:-
Complainants filed complaint for getting an amount of 2 Rs.1,49,630/- given by the complainants to the opponent for modular kitchen along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation. Complainants submitted that as there was marriage of their son, they wanted to have a modular kitchen in their flat which was situated at Powai, Mumbai. In that respect, they had made enquiry with the opponent who were dealing in proving modular kitchen. Opponent had given information to the complainants about different modular kitchens. Accordingly, complainants had selected modular kitchen for their flat worth Rs.1,36,528/-. Complainants had made initially payment of Rs.500/- to the opponent. Thereafter, the representatives of the opponent had visited the house of the complainants and had verified the spot of kitchen situated in their flat for fixing modular kitchen at that place. Thereafter, opponent had given quotation of modular kitchen to the complainants of amount of Rs.1,36,528/-. Complainants submitted that irrespective of that opponent had directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,49,683/- so that they will be in a position to provide modular kitchen to the complainants. Complainants submitted that accordingly they deposited Rs.1,49,683/- with the opponents. They submitted that they had paid an additional amount of Rs.13,654/- to the carpenter of the opponent as per their direction. They submitted that for fixing HOB in the kitchen, opponent had given an amount of Rs.8,000/- to them for purchasing the same, as per their choice. They submitted that however they required to pay an additional amount for purchasing the same and opponent had not given an additional amount to them. They submitted that although opponent had given delivery of modular kitchen on 22/08/2012 to the complainants, the same was not in proper condition and it was in damaged condition. They submitted that as they paid entire amount to the opponent, they required to accept the same. Complainants have given details of the damages which were to the modular kitchen given to them by the opponent in their complaint. They submitted that by not giving modular kitchen in proper condition, opponent has given deficiency in service to them. Hence, they filled consumer complaint for getting refund of an amount of Rs.1,49,683/- from the opponent along with interest on that amount 3 along with costs and compensation.
[3] Notice of the complaint was sent to the opponent on the address of the firm. Although notice was received by the firm, no one appeared in the matter on behalf of the firm. Hence, the matter proceeded ex-parte against the opponent. Considering the evidence adduced on record by the complainant and documents filed on record, the learned District Forum had come to conclusion that the opponent had given deficiency in service to the complainants by not providing modular kitchen in proper condition to them. Hence, the learned District Forum had directed the opponent to make all the repairs to the modular kitchen provided by them to the complainants within a period of two months from passing of the order. The Learned District Forum had also directed the opponent to pay an amount of Rs.57,000/- towards mental pain and agony and amount of Rs.3,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainants. Being aggrieved by the same, the opponent/appellant has preferred this appeal.
[4] Appellant has mainly contested the appeal on the ground that he was Ex-Director of the company, M/s.Oren Kitchen Appliances Pvt.Ltd. He submitted that the company had assured to give modular kitchen to the complainants. The company had accepted amount in respect of the same from the complainants. Company had provided modular kitchen to the complainants. He submitted that in respect of that modular kitchen if complainants had any objection, then they should take objection with the company and not with the appellant personally. The appellant has also contested the appeal mainly on the ground that he resigned from the Directorship of the company on 06/05/2013 and thereafter, other directors were appointed at his place. He submitted that at the time of passing of order by the learned District Forum, he was not in the company. Irrespective of that, for non-compliance of the order passed by the District Forum, he was proceeded by the complainants and learned District Forum also convicted him for non- compliance of the order passed by the learned District Forum. He submitted that he is not personally responsible for compliance of the 4 order passed by the learned District Forum as he has already resigned from the company from 06/05/2013. He also submitted that notice of the complaint was also not sent to him personally and it was served on the company at the address of the company. Hence, he submitted that the order passed against him by the Learned District Forum be set aside by allowing the appeal.
[5] On perusal of record, it has become clear that modular kitchen was booked by the complainants in the month of June 2013. Delivery of the modular kitchen was given to the complainants in the month of August 2013. At that time, appellant was one of the directors of the company. He resigned from the company on 06/05/2013 before passing of order by the Learned District Forum on 19/03/2014. Hence, it has become clear that the appellant was director of the company when modular kitchen was booked by the complainants and delivery was given to them. However, he was not the director of the company when the complaint was filed and order was passed by the Learned District Forum. On perusal of record, it has become clear that at the time of filing complaint, he was shown as Director of the company. However, contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that the complaint was filed against him personally. On perusal of the complaint and order passed by the Learned District Forum, it has become clear that the complaint was filed against M/s.Oren Kitchen Appliances Pvt.Ltd. He is only shown as Director of the company. As complaint was filed against the company and order was passed by the Learned District Forum against the company, the company was responsible for the compliance of the order passed by the Learned District Forum. Appellant himself has admitted that the notice of the complaint was served on the company at the address of the company. Hence, it has become clear that the company was duly served in the complaint. No one appeared for company to contest the complaint. Hence, the Learned District Forum had rightly proceeded ex-parte against the company and after considering evidence adduced on record by the complainants passed order against the company. Hence, it has become clear that proceedings are not initiated against the appellant personally. That order is not 5 passed by the Learned District Forum against the appellant personally. Complaint is filed against the company and company is held responsible for deficiency in service given to the complainants in not providing proper modular kitchen to them. Hence, we are of the opinion that order passed the Learned District Forum is against the company and same appears to be legal and correct. Hence, appeal filed by the appellant considering that order as has been passed against him in personal capacity is to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Appeal is hereby dismissed.
2) Parties to bear their own costs.
3) Free certified copies be furnished to the parties forthwith.
Pronounced on 7th February, 2018.
[USHA S. THAKARE] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [D.R.SHIRASAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER pg