N L Goel vs Stylepsa Furniture Ltd

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. N.L. Goel, appellant (complainant) placed an order No. 043 with M/s. Vidisha Furnishers (respondent No. 2), on 5.11.2003 for the supply of some furniture items and paid a sum of Rs. 82,164, in advance vide cheque No. 772672 dated 5.11.2003 drawn on Canara Bank, Sector -17 -C, Chandigarh and a sum of Rs. 1,750 in cash. Both these payments were reflected in receipt No. 262 dated 5.11.2003.

IT was next averred that the appellant requested the respondent No. 2 to supply the furniture at the earliest as he was to go to Australia in the 2nd week of December, 2003, and on it, respondent No. 2 assured him that furniture would be supplied within a week, latest by 15.12.2003 and accordingly some furniture items were supplied on 14.11.2003 vide Invoice No. 198. However, on receipt of furniture items, it was found that the same were not in accordance with the order placed with respondent No. 2 and some items had not been supplied, and the items supplied were of the value of Rs. 71,551 against payment of Rs. 83,914. According to the appellant, the following discrepancies were found in the furniture items: (a) that the crockery almirah/side board as ordered had not been supplied in spite of the order placed and payment made in advance. (b) that the three -seater sofa supplied was dirty and old one. It was the same sofa which was lying in the show -room of the respondent No. 2 at Chandigarh. (c) that the chairs supplied with the dining table were not the same as ordered. These were of cheaper quality. (d) that the booking order No. 043 which was supposed to be sent with the driver of the carrier, had not been sent.

IT was further averred that the appellant informed respondent No. 2 through writing as well as through telephone and it promised to remove the shortcomings within a week, but were not removed. He, even, wrote letter to both respondents but of no avail and ultimately he left for Delhi on 12.12.2003, for Australia and on return from Australia, again requested respondent No. 2 to supply the remaining items and to replace dirty furniture but it failed to do so. Even, notices issued to both respondents had no effect.

WITH these allegations, complaint was filed on the ground that respondents had indulged in unfair trade practice and had been deficient in providing service to him, so, he prayed that directions be issued to replace the dirty/old furniture and supply the remaining items as per order dated No. 043 dated 5.11.2003, along with compensation for mental harassment, etc. Respondents contested the complaint. Respondent No. 1 took preliminary objections, inter alia contending that it did not come under the definition of consumer, as the appellant had not paid any kind of consideration to it for any goods or services. It further stated that the appellant had purchased the furniture items from respondent No. 2, who was its dealer and as per dealership agreement, respondent No. 2 used to get consignment from it, after making full payment of the purchase order by it and the dealer sold the same on retail price after adding its own profit and respondent No. 1 had no direct dealing with the retail customers and it was responsible in case there was any manufacturing defect in the product for which the company was giving warranty card. It further stated that the manufacturing of ''Metro 200270 -Side Board'' was stopped in the month of March, 2003 and intimation to that effect was sent to the dealers vide letter dated 20.3.2003 but despite full knowledge, respondent No. 2 had wrongly took order for supply of Metro 200270 -Side Board, and as such it was not responsible if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2. It denied that the respondent No. 1 was branch office of respondent No. 2 but respondent No. 2 was only its dealer. It was for sale outlet of the dealer to supply the items which it had booked. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint against it be dismissed.

RESPONDENT No. 2 filed separate written statement. It stated that all the items, as per order, had been supplied to the appellant on 14.11.2003 except one Metro Side Board, as the same was not available with respondent No. 1 and an option was given to the appellant to take the refund of Rs. 10,613 or to select any furniture item of the same value, and as such there was no deficiency in its service. It admitted receipt of Rs. 82,164 vide cheque but denied the receipt of Rs. 1,750 in cash. It further stated that appellant had forged receipt No. 262 dated 5.11.2003. It denied that the appellant had been cheated. It admitted the receipt of legal notice from appellant but asserted that the same had been replied. It further stated that the appellant had filed frivolous complaint on false grounds in order to get maximum refund instead of Rs. 10,613.

IT may be stated here that respondent No. 2 had already paid Rs. 10,613 to the appellant vide cheque in the presence of President, District Forum II, on 2.12.2004, being the price of the Metro Side Board. After hearing appellant and Counsel for respondents, the District Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh, vide order dated 3.5.2005 partly accepted the complaint and ordered both respondents to pay interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 10,613 for the period commencing from 5.11.2003 to 2.12.2004, for having forced to the appellant to enter into unnecessary correspondence and also granted Rs. 10,000 as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony etc. and further awarded Rs. 1,500 as costs of litigation. It was also ordered that liability of the respondents shall be joint, several and co -extensive, and they were given a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of comply with the order of payment, or in default they were further directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of pronouncement of the order till its payment.

STILL dissatisfied, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard the appellant in person, Mr. Vishal Bali, Advocate for the respondents and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that the appellant booked Order No. 043 dated 5.11.2003 (Annexure -1) with the respondent No. 2 for the supply of furniture items and made payment of Rs. 82,164 vide cheque No. 772672 dated 5.11.2003 drawn on Canara Bank, Sector 17 -C, Chandigarh. A perusal of the receipt Annexure -1 shows that Rs. 1,750 were also paid in cash. The factum of receipt of Rs. 1,750 has been denied by respondent No. 2 but the addition of Rs. 1,750 in Rs. 82,164 is also signed by the same person who had signed the original receipt as shown in photocopy, Annexure -1. Mr. Vikram, who was the Manager of respondent No. 2, at that time, had not been examined by respondent No. 2 by way of affidavit. The statement of Ms. Sabina Arora, partner of complainant, by way of affidavit, is not believable because she was not present at the time when receipt was issued and payment was received. The receipt is not signed by Ms. Sabina Arora but by Mr. Vikram, Manager of the Firm who received the amount from the appellant, therefore, in such circumstances, the statement of appellant by way of affidavit is to be believed, and coupled with the photocopy of the receipt Annexure -1, it has been proved that Rs. 1,750 were also paid in cash by the appellant. Thus, total amount paid by appellant is Rs. 83,914. He received furniture worth Rs. 71,551. He also received Rs. 10,613 during proceedings. So, he is entitled to refund of Rs. 1,750 along with 6% p.a. interest till payment, from 5.11.2003.

THE first grievance of the appellant is that he had not been supplied Metro 200270 -Side Board, although he had placed an order for the same and had made payment in advance. It is true, that the said furniture item has not been supplied. The case of respondent No. 2 is that since its manufacturing was stopped by respondent No. 1, so it could not be supplied to the appellant. However, respondent No. 1 had stated that it stopped manufacturing of the above said item eight months prior to the booking of order and respondent No. 2 should not have booked that item as respondent No. 2 was informed in advance that respondent No. 1 had stopped manufacturing the said furniture item. There is no dispute that before the District Forum appellant had received a cheque of Rs. 10,613 from respondent No. 2 on 2.12.2004. The District Forum has also ordered the payment of interest on that amount.

FURTHER grievance of the complainant is that the chairs supplied with the dining table were not the same as ordered by him but were of cheaper quality. He has further alleged that he had placed an order for chairs with Code No. 999082 but he was supplied chairs of Code No. 999058, which were of inferior quality. The original bill bearing Order No. 043 was not placed on file by the appellant. He, in fact, stated that the said bill was not given to him at the time of placing the order as the respondent No. 2 had stated that the bill would be sent along with the furniture as the original bill was required to be shown at the octroi post, when the furniture was to be sent. However, the respondent No. 2 has placed on file photocopy of the bill bearing order No. 043 dated 5.11.2003. Carbon copy of the said order form was also seen by us. It is signed by the appellant. It shows that the appellant had placed an order for supply of dining chairs MG bearing product Code 999058. Thus, he had not placed order of chairs bearing product Code 999082 and he had been supplied chairs bearing product Code 999058, which is in order, and on this score alone, the allegation of the appellant is false and the same deserves to be rejected. Further, grievance of the appellant is that the sofa set supplied to him was dirty and old one. In fact, he stated that sofa set was placed in the show room of respondent No. 2 and he had seen it at the time of placing order in the show room and the same has been supplied to him and fresh one has not been supplied. It is admitted by him that the sofa set supplied to him was in pieces and was duly wrapped. Counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that since furniture items were supplied from Chennai, so, there was no question that old sofa set had been supplied to the appellant. It has further been observed by District Forum that companies and their dealers exhibit the best available articles for better view and appreciation of the customers in their showrooms and they do not display articles which may attract adverse comments and dissuade them from going ahead with the purchase of such articles. Thus, the plea of appellant that three -seater sofa set supplied to him was dirty and old one, did not find favour with the Forum. We have no reason to differ from the view taken by the District Forum. Moreover, in the complaint lodged by the appellant with the respondents he had only mentioned that three -seater sofa set supplied to him appeared to be dirty and old one, but he did not assert positively that it was dirty and old one. Thus, respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted on this account alone.

NOW , further question is what relationship exists between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The allegation of respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 was its dealer and not its agent and as such it was not liable for the acts of respondent No. 2 and if some warranty had been given on furniture items and there is manufacturing defect, then alone it would be liable for the replacement of furniture item. A principal does not sell to his agent. There is a distinction between a contract of sale and contract of agency for sale. The essence of sale is the transfer of title to the goods for a price paid or promised to be paid. The essence of agency to sell is the delivery of goods to a person who is to sell them not as his own property but as that of the principal who remains the owner of the goods and the agent is, therefore, liable to account for the proceeds. In order to constitute selling agency, goods should be sold to the customer introduced by the agent not on behalf of the agent but on behalf of the principal. When a wholesale dealer sells goods of a manufacturer for his own profit, he is not an agent of the manufacturer, therefore, there is no relationship of principal and agent between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, because respondent No. 2 is a dealer of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had purchased the furniture goods at wholesale price from respondent No. 1 and further had sold the same at some profit. The respondent No. 1 will be liable only if there is a manufacturing defect in the furniture goods supplied by it to respondent No. 2 and warranty had been given by it for the same. Hence, the District Forum has wrongly held that there is relationship of principal and agent between the respondents and respondent No. 1 is liable with respondent No. 2 jointly, severally and further their liability is co -extensive. This finding is set aside.

COUNSEL for respondents contended that the matter relating to fabrication and manipulation of documents involved complicated issue and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had no jurisdiction to try the same and the appellant should seek remedy from the Civil Court. For this contention, he placed reliance on the authority Santokh Singh v. The Punjab Finance Corporation and Another, II (2003) CPJ 362=2003 (2) CPC 120. In our opinion, the above mentioned authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In fact, fabrication and manipulation of documents, to that extent, is not involved, therefore, we have not been asked to adjudicate the complicated issue, hence, the prayer is declined. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with the observations that respondent No. 1 is not liable and only respondent No. 2 shall be liable to make payment of the amounts, as ordered by the District Forum. Besides that, respondent No. 2 shall also pay Rs. 1,750 along with 6% p.a. interest from 5.11.2003 till payment. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.