SATBIR FURNISHERS Vs. LALITA SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Dr. Lalita Sehgal, complainant, placed an order for some furniture with the opposite party in August, 1992. The furniture ordered, inter-alia, included six dining chairs, (Rs.2,100/-) and two pairs of bed (Rs.5,600/- ). After a discount of Rs.750/-, which appears to have been given by the opposite party, the cost of furniture which was Rs.10,700/-. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party also arranged two pairs of coirfoam mattresses from an adjoining dealer and the opposite party was paid Rs.3,600/- for the same. The payment was made by two bearer cheques of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.9.000/- and balance amount of Rs.4,500/- was paid in cash. The furniture and mattresses were delivered at the residence of the complainant on 31.8.1992. It is admitted case of both sides that husband of the complainant accompanied the tempo in which the furniture and mattresses were transported. Further case of the complainant is that the furniture suffered from the following defects: (i) The dining chairs were defective and not as per specifications disclosed at the time of placing the order; (ii) Platform of one pair of beds should have been in two pieces as per order and not in one piece; (iii) The price charged for the mattresses was in excess of the listed price of Rs.1,578/-per pair and under the scheme then in force along with the pair of mattresses the dealer was required to supply free of cost one bed spread and pillow covers which were not supplied to the complainant. These defects were brought to the notice of the opposite party and they promised to rectify the defects but inspite of repeated requests, failed to do the needful and accordingly, the complainant was obliged to file a complaint before District Forum-II on June 1,1993.

(2.) In the written version, it was denied that the furniture suffered from any defects. In fact, the husband of the complainant had inspected the furniture and it was loaded in the tempo in his presence after he was satisfied that the furniture was in accordance with the order and suffered from no defects. It was further denied that the mattresses had been supplied by the opposite party. What was, in fact, done was that at the request of husband of the complainant, the matresses were arranged from an adjoining dealer as the opposite party was not dealing in matresses. The list price of mattresses was Rs.1,900/- per pair and the complainant was given a discount of Rs.100/- per pair and the balance of Rs.3,600/- had been paid. The other dealer was introduced to the complainant's husband as gesture of goodwill (vide rejoinder to the reply filed in appeal ). Both the parties filed their affidavits. A kaccha receipt detailing various pieces of furniture and the price charged, therefore, was also filed.

(3.) On a consideration of the material before it, me District Forum rejected the complainant's case insofar as alleged defects in the dining chairs were concerned but accepted the other part of the complaint namely alleged over-charging for two pairs of mattresses to the tune of Rs.444/- and alleged defects in the two pairs of beds. The conclusion reached was that the opposite party was guilty of deficiency in service. It was directed to refund Rs.444/- charged in excess as price of the mattresses along with 18% interest per annum. It was further directed that the opposite party shall refund the price charged for the two pairs of beds along with interest @ 18% p. a. and collect the two pairs of beds from the residence of the complainant at his own cost. The complainant was further allowed Rs.2,000/- on account of compensation/costs. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.