LT. COL. AJIT KUMAR SUKUMARA PILLAI Vs. BANTIA STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., STEEL AND WOODEN FURNITURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed the appeal being dissatisfied by the order passed by the District Forum-II Hyderabad in C.D.No. 562 of 2008 whereby the opposite party was directed to replace the set of dining table and four chairs and pay compensation , an amount of Rs.3,000/- together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant has been residing in Guahathi on employment with Indian Army while his wife has been residing in Secunderabad. The appellant has purchased on 2nd January,2008 a set of dining table and four chairs which were made of teak and were delivered to him on the same day on payment of an amount of Rs.24,000/-. In the delivery challan it was not mentioned that the table and chairs were made of teak wood and on being questioned the same the employee of the respondent who delivered the furniture replied that it would be mentioned in the bill that would be issued the next day which was not given. The appellant noticed cracks in the table and chairs within three days of the purchase which was repeatedly reported to the respondent who after much persuasion had sent on 12th January, 2008 to repair the table and chairs by inserting nuts and bolts. The respondent has not issued the bill nor had taken cognizance of the cracks developed in the table and chairs. The appellant complained of the same to the respondent on 15th January,2008, 26th May,2008, 2nd June,2008 and 23rd June,2008 for which there was no response from the respondent. By resorting to unfair trade practice the respondent supplied sub standard quality material.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim contending that the appellant collected the bill the next day of purchase of the dinging table and chairs i.e., 3rd January,2008. On 12th January,2008, the appellant complained of the cracks in the table and chairs and within three days therefrom the respondent had sent a carpenter to carry out the necessary repairs which are of a trivial nature. After six months the appellant has telephonically informed the respondent that the cracks in the dining table and chairs reappeared. On 7th July,2008 the respondent has sent his employee along with a carpenter. A proforma service report no.951 for carrying out the necessary repairs was issued by the respondent. The appellant has not allowed the carpenter to inspect the furniture by endorsing on the service report to refund the amount by taking back the furniture supplied by the respondent. On 26th May,2008, 2nd June,2008 and 26th May,2008 the appellant addressed letters complaining of the defect in the furniture on receipt of which the respondent offered to replace the furniture for which proposal the respondent has accepted. The appellant did not turn up. The furniture supplied to the appellant is imported one and the same has been mentioned in the delivery challan. The appellant had carefully checked the furniture before purchasing the same which is of standard quality The respondent has the reputation of 52 years of standing in the business with their motto of rendering good service to the customers in view of which the respondent offered to the appellant to replace the furniture with new furniture of the same make. The respondent is ready to replace the furniture with the new furniture of the same make. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent nor did the respondent play any unfair trade practice on the appellant.