S.C. Case No. FA/349/2013. Case: Shyamal Das Vs MS. Sukla Mukherjee. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | S.C. Case No. FA/349/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.K. Das, Advocate and For Respondents: Keka Chakraborty, Advocate |
| Judges | Kali das Mukherjee, J. (President) Mridula Roy and Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 122 (WB) |
| Judgement Date | June 23, 2014 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Members
-
The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order date 22.2.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. Case No. 422/2012, directing the Appellant/OP to refund Rs. 45,000, to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 6,000 as litigation cost to the Respondent/Complainant, apart from depositing with the State Consumer Welfare Fund Rs. 100 per day as punitive damage till realization of the aforesaid amount. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased one wooden Box Cot, one almirah and one wooden English Dressing Table against payment of Rs. Rs. 45,000 out of Rs. 50,000, being the total consideration of the said furniture, under Receipt No. NIL dated 6.1.2012 from the Appellant's/OP's shop under the name 'New Das Furniture', 2-Paisar Ghat, Manirampur, Barrackpore, Kolkata-120, and took delivery of the same on 8.2.2012. Some months later the Respondent/Complainant detected some defects in the said furniture and brought such defects to the notice of the Appellant/OP, who, in turn, requested the Respondent/Complainant to bring the defective furniture to his shop or to take him to the place where the furniture were kept, for curing the defects, but the Respondent/Complainant did nothing in response keeping the alleged defects as they were. Also, the Respondent/Complainant had kept 5,000 due to the Appellant/OP. In this backdrop, the learned District Forum passed the judgment and order impugned with the above-mentioned directions. Aggrieved by such order the Appellant/OP has approached this Commission.
-
The learned Advocate for the Appellant/OP contends that the Respondent/Complainant took delivery of the furniture on 8.2.2012 after proper physical checking of the furniture in question and without pointing out any sort of defect in the furniture. After passage of some months from the date of delivery, the Respondent/Complainant raised the issue of defect when the outstanding payment of Rs. 5,000 was demanded from the Respondent/Complainant, the learned Advocate continues. It is also contended by the learned Advocate that the Appellant/OP was not allowed, on requests being made repeatedly, by the Respondent/Complainant to inspect into the defects alleged and to repair the defects, if any, found on physical inspection by him. Such denial of the opportunity by the Respondent/Complainant for physical inspection...
To continue reading
Request your trial