Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member:
Oral:
1. Aggrieved by the Order in C.C. No. 488/2009 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a dining table with a glass top from the opposite party on 12.7.2008 paying an amount of Rs. 17,000 and this table was delivered to them on the same day. She submits that she was verbally informed that the product had one year guarantee and on 12.4.2009 i.e. exactly 9 months after purchase there was an explosion and the dining table burst into small pieces. The complainant along with her family members was sitting in the living room when there was a loud explosion and the pieces of glass flew past them and her younger son received a slight injury and it took nearly 30 minutes for the glass to stop bursting. There was expensive glassware and crockery on the dining table worth more than Rs. 3000 and all of them broke due to explosion. When the complainant informed the same to Modern Life Style i.e. opposite party herein they said that they would send someone at the earliest but nobody had bothered to visit her home and she submits that it is only because of inferior material that they had used, that this explosion had happened and if the opposite party warned her about the product she would have purchased the wooden dining table and not spent an amount of Rs. 17,000. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the oppose party to refund Rs. 17,000 together with damages of Rs. 3,000 and other compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant had no privity of contract with them since her claim is not supported by any valid invoice or warranty card issued by them and that they never sold any dining table or glass to the complainant and that any furniture or crockery made of glass does not carry any warranty and that they are in the furniture business for several years and the glass does not carry warranty from the manufacturers and that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
3. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs. A1 to A8 dismissed the complaint on the ground that in the absence of any expert opinion to substantiate the real reason for breakage it cannot be concluded that the breakage occurred due to any manufacturing defect.
Both parties present in person. Heard.
4. We have perused the material on record. It is the complainants case that she purchased a glass top dining table paying an amount of Rs. 17,000 on 12.7.2008 and she relies on Ex. A8 which is an estimate No. 450 issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 17,000. The complainant submits that the entire amount was paid in cash and that when she insisted for a bill, the opposite party had only given her the said estimate. Opposite party present in person submitted that they have issued estimate when she had requested to know the price of the dining table but they have not sold the dining table to her nor have they collected the amount towards purchase of the dining table. The complainant filed third party affidavit who stated that they were present when the transaction took place and that an amount of Rs. 17,000 was paid in cash. The opposite party did not take any steps to led any further evidence to state that this dining table was not purchased in their shop. They did not take any steps to examine third party who filed an affidavit. The complainant also filed literature about spontaneous glass breakage and also photographs of the dining table which shows that the entire top had broken into pieces. This is evidenced under Ex. Al. Ex. A2 is the copy of the telephone bill which evidences that she had made phone calls to opposite party and it is the complainants case that these phone calls were made subsequent to the explosion in her house and both these calls are dated 18.4.2009 and 20.4.2009, while it is her case that the dining table had exploded on 12.4.2009. Ex. A6 is the letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party date 25.4.2009 calling upon them to refund her money. Though the opposite party described the bill as an estimate, it is a dubious way of describing an invoice and in general commercial transactions no such estimate would be given in place of an invoice and it is also not stated under what authority such an estimate could be issued and it is also observed from the record that the complainant did not give any requisition to issue such an estimate. Having issued a bill, though dubiously called an âestimate it is incumbent upon the trader to prove that no such transaction taken place. Though the opposite party in person does not deny issuance of the estimate but denies that the transaction took place, we are of the considered view that the material on record evidences that the opposite party had sold the dining table to the complainant and did not choose either to reply to her letter or to her phone calls and even before this Commission did not give any substantial reasons for the issuance of an estimate and not a bill to a private party. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the material on record we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party in not attending to the problem of the complainant for which act they are liable to refund an amount of Rs. 15,000 since the complainant had used the dining table for a period of 9 months. We also award compensation of Rs. 3,000 and costs of Rs. 2,000
5. In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to take back the defective dining table and refund an amount of Rs. 15,000 together with compensation of Rs. 3000 and costs of Rs. 2,000 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Appeal allowed.