DR. THOMAS MATHEW vs BLUE MOON COMMUNICATIONS AND CREDIT PVT. LTD.

The complainant/petitioner purchased four items of furniture and a mattress from the respondent on 15.09.2010 against payment of Rs. 1 lakh. The aforesaid articles were delivered to him on 18.09.2010. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the wood/plywood/MDF used in the furniture was of cheap quality and the furniture was still giving smell of polish when it was received by him. The petitioner/complainant wrote a letter to the respondent for the first time on 22.09.2010, pointing out the above referred defects and seeking to return the furniture purchased by him. Since the request made by him was not acceded to by the respondent, he approached the concerned District Forum, by way of a complaint seeking return of the furniture against refund of Rs. 1 lakh to him. He also sought some compensation from the respondent.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent on the ground that all the articles supplied to the complainant were duly checked/inspected by him at the time of delivery on 18.09.2010 and that is why the delivery was accepted by him without any demur or protest.

Vide its order dated 11.11.2013, the District Forum directed the opposite party/respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 1 lakh, which it had received from the complainant and take back the furniture supplied to him. The complainant was also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.

Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission, by way of an appeal. Vide order dated 08.04.2014, the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum, but still directed the respondent to attend to the fungus problem by treating the furniture with required chemicals and then wax polish the same, if desired by the complainant.

The complainant who appears in person states that when he received the furniture on 18.09.2010 and found that the same was of inferior quality, he had noted the defects/shortcomings on the delivery challan issued to him. The copy of the said delivery challan has not been filed. Moreover, on a perusal of the record, I find that no such averment was made by the petitioner/complainant either in the first complaint, which he had written to the respondent on 22.09.2010 or in the consumer complaint filed by him. It was only during his cross-examination that the aforesaid averment was made by him for the first time. Had the complainant/petitioner noted the alleged defects in the furniture on the delivery challan itself, as is claimed by him, he, in my opinion, would certainly have stated so not only in the complaint sent to the respondent on 22.09.2010, but also in the consumer complaint filed by him. Had he made such an allegation in the consumer complaint, the respondent would have got an opportunity to rebut the same by producing the delivery challan which the respondent had sent to the complainant at the time of delivery of the furniture.

In these circumstances, when the complainant did not refer to any such alleged noting on the delivery challan, either in the consumer complaint or the first complaint he wrote to the respondent, his oral averment made by him in this regard cannot be accepted. In any case, the State Commission having, on consideration of the facts of the case, returned a finding, against the complainant, I will not be justified in interfering with the said finding unless it is shown to be perverse in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that no reasonable person acting on the material available before him, could have taken the view which the State Commission took in the present case. Therefore, the finding returned by the State Commission cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant inference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission. However, I direct the respondent to attend to the fungus problem and wax polish the furniture in terms of the order of the State Commission within eight weeks from today. I direct the respondent to depute its employee to attend to the aforesaid problem and wax polish the furniture at the residence of the complainant/petitioner, free of cost, on 21 st and 22 nd of March, 2015. The revision petition stands disposed of.