KAPOOR FURNITURES Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. JASWANT Singh respondent had filed his complaint under Sec.12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 (the Act) against Kapoor Furnitures, Sriganganagar, the present appellant, and Prakash Construction Co. , Sriganganagar (which has not been made party to the present appeal) alleging therein that on 14.2.1995 the complainant had purchased a sofa set for Rs.6,000/- from the appellant with a guarantee of one year in respect of defect in the goods. His case was that on the third day of the use of the said furniture the cushions, the legs and wooden slabs of the sofa were known to be defective. On a complaint having been filed by him with the appellant, the defective goods was neither replaced by the appellant nor the price thereof was refunded to him. The appellant denied to have sold the goods in question to the respondent.

(2.) On the basis of the material produced before it the Forum held that it was the appellant who had sold the goods to the respondent and issued the receipt on the letter head of Prakash Construction Co. , which was a party to the complaint before the Forum. The Forum accepted the case of the respondent complainant to the effect that Prakash Construction Co. was a sister concern of the appellant and that the bill had been issued by the appellant's servant/man to the respondent. The Forum, therefore, decreed the claim of the respondent requiring the appellant to replace the sofa set or refund the price thereof at Rs.6,000/- with interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of institution of the complaint and further pay a compensation of Rs.200/- for mental agony and cost at Rs.500/-, to him. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

(3.) After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the affidavits of Jaswant Singh complainant-respondent, Sunil Kapoor on behalf of the appeal and and the other material we are satisfied that the goods in question had been sold by the appellant to the respondent. There seems to be no good reasons to accept the preposition that the complainant would purchase the goods from another person but would unnecessarily like to file a complaint against the present appellant. It may be added that on record of the Forum there is the copy of the complaint dated 18.3.1995 made by the respondent to Ganganagar Distt. Consumer Protection Council also. The Council had required the appellant to explain the circumstances under which the complaint was lodged against him with them by the respondent. The appellant does not appear to have explained his position there.