Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. CC/170/2017 1. Latha Aged about 55 years No.83/3 Pwd Quarters, G 1st Cross, Jeevanbheemanagar, Bengaluru-560075. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Brindavan Furnitures No.13,Outer Ring Road, (Service Road) Near Vijaya Bank Colony,Banaswadi, Bengaluru-560043. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. L MAMATHA MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 03 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement CC No.170.2017 Filed on:01.02.2017 Disposed on:03.01.2018 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU? 560 027. DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2018 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.170/2017 PRESENT: Sri. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B. PRESIDENT Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B. MEMBER COMPLAINANT Latha Aged about 55 Years, No.83/3, PWD Quarters, G 1st Cross, Jeevanbheemanagar, Bangalore-560075. V/S OPPOSITE PARTY Brindavan Furnitures, No.13, Outer Ring Road, (Service Road) Near Vijaya Bank Colony, Banaswadi, Bangalore-560043. ORDER BY SMT.L.MAMATHA, MEMBER This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 01.02.2017 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.29,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.32,000/- + Rs.50,000/- and other reliefs. The brief facts of the complaint as under: In the complaint, the Complainant states that she had given an order to Opposite Party to make a Sofa Set (3+1+1) with correct dimensions at the cost of Rs.29,000/- dt.26.07.2016. With the customized handle of correct dimensions, when the Sofa was delivered to the house premises. The Sofa was too large that it didn?t even enter through the main door. The delivery boys of the Company had to lift all the way through the balcony of her 2nd floor house. As Complainant living in the Government Quarter?s. The Sofa is too large as it consumes most of the space in the living room & it is a lot of inconvenience to Complainants daily routine works. The size of the Sofa handle (width 13 and length 90) and it occupies the most of the space, as it was not the specification that was given to the Showroom. When she contacted Opposite Party Showroom regarding the problem occurred, they didn?t even respond to her in a proper manner and she continued to contact them for more than two months, there was still no proper response from them, they didn?t even pick the call. So even she visited Opposite Party Showroom and had to state the problem and even requested them but their reply was they couldn?t get the factory to her residence and they cannot do anything about the problem. As it wasted of time, energy and loss of money. Later she had even sent a register post as on dt.01.12.2016 to the Showroom stating that she will register a complaint under Consumer Forum regarding the problem created from the Showroom, there was still no reply from the Showroom. As Complainant is middle class family and her husband is driver in the profession and her son is an engineering student. Her husband?s income is the only source to her family. They have faced a lot of problems financially as well as mentally they have paid Rs.500/- additionally for the service charge other than the Sofa?s cost i.e., Rs.29,000/- and other expenses. Hence, this complaint. Even though, notice was served on the Opposite Party, Opposite Party fails to file version. In support of the complaint, she has filed her affidavit by way of evidence. Heard the Arguments. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ? If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled? Our findings on the above points are:- POINT (1):- Affirmative POINT (2):- As per the final Order REASONS POINT NO.1:- On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the Complainant, it reveals that on 08.07.2016 Complainant given an Order with Opposite Party to make a Sofa set (3+1+1) with correct dimensions at the cost of Rs.29,000/- when Sofa was delivered to the Complainant?s house on 26.07.2016 Complainant noticed the Sofa that it was too large that it didn?t even enter through the main door. The delivery boys of the Opposite Party had to lift all the way through the balcony of her 2nd floor house. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed her affidavit. In her sworn testimony she has reiterated the same and also in support of her sworn testimony, she produced copy of purchase bill, copy of the visit card of sales executive, copy of the letter, copy of the photos of Sofa. By looking into these documents, it clearly shows that on 08.07.2016, the Complainant given order with Opposite Party to make a Sofa (3+1+1) at the cost of Rs.29,000/-. On 26.07.2016 Opposite Party delivered Sofa to the Complainant?s house. The Complainant noticed that Sofa was too large that it did not even enter through the main door. The delivery boys of the Company had to lift all the way through the balcony of her 2nd floor house. As Complainant living in the Government Quarter?s, the Sofa consumes most of the space in the living room & Complainant faced lot of problems as inconvenient to her daily routine works. The size of the Sofa handle (width 13 and length 90). But Complainant not given such specification. The Complainant contacted Opposite Party and explain the problem occurred. But they didn?t even respond to her in a proper manner, Opposite Party didn?t even pick the call. The testimony of the Complainant remains unchallenged. If at all the Opposite Party has delivered the correct dimension of Sofa what the Complainant ordered, the Opposite Party ought to have produced relevant evidence. But there is no such evidence. Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has neither rectify the defect of Sofa set nor refund the amount of Sofa set. Due to this, the Complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. On 01.12.2014 the Complainant sent a letter asking for either change of Sofa set or refund of Sofa sets amount. The said notice was served on Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party neither replied the notice nor fulfill the demand of the Complainant. To disbelieve the version of the Complainant nothing was on record. In spite of repeated request, the Opposite Party never bothered to fulfill the demand of the Complainant. Thereby, this clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, this point is held in the affirmative. ORDER The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency in service by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.29,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to pay aforesaid amount within 45 days from the date of this order. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 03rd January 2018 ) MEMBER PRESIDENT LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant: Smt.Latha who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit. List of documents filed by the Complainant: Copy of purchase Bill Visit card:Sales Executive, Naresh, Register Post Letter Acknowledgement, Sofa Photo. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties: Nil List of documents filed by the Opposite Party: Nil MEMBER PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. L MAMATHA] MEMBER