SATBIR FURNISHERS vs LALITA SEHGAL

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.

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. 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.

We have heard Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant and the respondent in person and have carefully gone through the records.

REGARDING the mattresses the version of the opposite party, appellant herein, appears to be substantially true. There is no dispute that the opposite party was not dealing in mattresses. It is consistent with the probabilities of the case that since the complainant had placed order for furniture with the opposite party and the person dealing in mattresses was situated nearby and might be known to the opposite party, the opposite party offered to help the complainant to buy mattresses from them. Especially as a tempo had to be arranged for carrying the furniture and it would be convenient to send the mattresses along with the remaining furniture. Apart from the fact that the opposite party was not dealing in mattresses the kaccha receipt while giving details of other items of furniture is conspicuous by me absence of any reference to the mattresses. While on the subject of mattresses we may also point out that the complainant led no evidence to show what was the list price of the mattresses in question at that time and also that there was a scheme under which the dealer was to supply free of cost one bed spread and a pair of pillow covers. Moreover, the question of price is outside the purview of the FORA unless the price is regulated and fixed under some law or order having the force of law. It was the duty of the person placing the order to have taken care as to what was the prevailing price and that the complainant was entitled to certain free gifts on account of the purchase of mattresses. We have, therefore, no difficulty in setting aside order of the District Forum for the refund of Rs. 444/ - and interest thereon. The next question is about the alleged defects in some of the items of the furniture. In the complaint dated June 1, 1993, the defects pointed out were, (a) dining chairs were defective and not as per specifications disclosed at the time of placing the order; and (b) platform of one pair of bed should had been in separate two pieces instead of one piece. A perusal of the record shows that the complainant had been shifting her stand from stage to stage. Actually, in respect of the beds the version as later developed was that the boxes did not fit in the beds leaving certain gaps which permitted some insects to enter those boxes. It appears that the beds ordered were with boxes underneath for storage of clothes etc. Still later the version was changed to use of defective insects infected wood. These improvements must be rejected as an after- thought. Having regard to probabilities of the case, the complainant would not have gone to the extent of filing a complaint before the Forum if there were no defects in the furniture at all. We are not impressed by the fact that the complainant created the whole controversy only to avoid payment of sales tax. It is not a secret that mostly sales tax is evaded by a collusion both between the dealer as well as purchaser of goods. This is especially applicable to cases where the entire payment is not made by cheques. What appears to have happened is that there were some minor defects of adjustment etc. in the boxes. In all fairness Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary offered that the appellant would be glad to have the said defects rectified at no extra charge. For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow the appeal, set aside the order for refund of Rs. 444/- along with interest ordered thereon. The order for the refund of the price of the bed in lieu of receiving back the beds which have already been used for more than 5 years is totally unjustified and unwarranted. We set aside the same. Instead, the opposite party shall within 4 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order carry out repairs to remove defects in the boxes of the beds free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. The order for payment of costs and compensation is affirmed. The amount shall be paid within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order be furnished to both sides and sent to District Forum-II. Appeal partly allowed.