Decograph Interiors & Anr vs Swaroop Khara

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Decograph Interiors & Anr. against the order dated 03.10.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.462 of 2015.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent was supplied office furniture on the payment of Rs.5,50,000/- on 29.05.2012 and 07.07.2012 from petitioner /OP-1, Interior Company. After the payment complainant found defects like cracks on the panel, poor quality table etc. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint. The OPs resisted the complaint by filing the written statement. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short 'the District Forum') vide its order dated 13.10.2015 partly allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.5,50,000/- with 9% interest plus Rs.50,000/- for compensation and cost.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OPs/petitioners herein preferred an appeal bearing No.462 of 2015 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 03.10.2017.

Hence the present revision.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there was no agreement to supply the furniture of the featherlite brand and therefore, the complainant cannot blame petitioners for non-supply of featherlite brand furniture. Both the fora below have observed this fact that the OPs/petitioners were not obliged to supply the featherlite brand furniture. So far as the defects are concerned, it was stated by the learned counsel that the complainant utilized this furniture for about eight months and then he made the allegation of defects. The complainant is enjoying the furniture, therefore, the total amount of the original purchase price cannot be refunded to the complainant even if the furniture is taken back by the petitioners. If the total price is paid back to the complainant, it would mean that complainant would have enjoyed for so many years without any rent for the same. Had the complainant taken the same furniture on rent, he would have paid a huge amount. It was further argued by the learned counsel if there was some defect, the OPs were ever ready to repair the same. However, order has been passed for refund of the total price of the furniture, which is totally unjustified.

Coming to the interest awarded by the District Forum, the learned counsel stated that there should be no question of paying any interest, as the complainant is enjoying the furniture as the furniture has not been returned by the complainant to the OPs. Furniture is equivalent to the price paid by the complainant, therefore, if the money is lying with the OPs, the furniture is lying with the complainant. Hence, in case the furniture is returned to the OPs, the OPs will only be liable to pay the price. The question of interest does not arise. In fact if the furniture is to be returned finally, the complainant should pay interest on the price of the furniture as rent for the furniture.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent stated that both the fora below have given a concurrent finding of facts and therefore, the scope under the revision petition is very limited. No question of law is involved in the present revision petition and only the facts are to be assessed. Both the fora below have assessed the fact and have given concurrent finding, thus this Commission cannot reassess the facts in the matter. When the furniture was supplied, the same could not be fixed immediately but when it was fixed after sometime, the defects were noticed and communicated to the OPs, but the OPs did not do anything to rectify the defect and therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint. The learned counsel further argued that it is wrong to say that the complainant is using the furniture because it is not possible to use the furniture due to bad condition of the furniture, rather, it is occupying the space of the complainant and therefore, OPs should be asked to pay the rent if they are not picking the furniture of the complainant even after the orders of the fora below.

Learned counsel for the respondent further stated that the interest on the amount of refund would be payable as per the order of the District Forum because the amount was to be paid at that time and if the amount is not paid in time, it will definitely attract interest. Moreover, the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, and harassment due to supply of defective furniture from the OPs and therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation as well.

I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and have examined the material on record.

The District Forum has observed as under:

"7. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties not supplied featherlite branded furniture as agreed by them, but as per Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 it was observed that there was no mention about the name of the brand agreed by the opposite parties. Hence, may be the opposite parties are the one of the dealers of featherlite company, but in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 there is no mention about the supply of featherlite brand furniture to the complainant.

The plea of the opposite parties is that Architect of the complainant approved all the materials supplied by them, but it is to be noted that no documentary evidence filed by the opposite parties regarding the approval of the architect. Moreover, the complainant made mail communication with the architect requesting him to replace the furniture with featherlite make through Decograph people as the complainant placed the order on recommendation of the architect but there was no response from the architect also.

Hence, after careful analyzation of the facts of the complaint, counter and affidavits, written arguments with related documents, the forum is of the view that the complainant immediately after fixing the furniture, he intimated about the defects of the furniture but the opposite parties not come forward to rectify the defects even after several requests and demands made by the complainant, hence, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- paid by the complainant on receipt of furniture supplied by them to the complainant."

The State Commission has observed the following:

"9. We have considered the above contentions and examined the material on record. It is true that there is nothing on record to show that the appellants agreed to supply featherlite brand furniture. Nonetheless whatever was agreed upon, they are expected to supply standard furniture without any defects. Upon perusal of Ex.47 photographs we find the damage to most of the furniture such as cracked panels, bent surface, detached joints and broken lock and the drawers. Whatever is the time of installation of the furniture these damages would not have happened if the appellants had supplied quality material. When the damages occurred within a period of installation there could be no other reason except the poor quality material. In this view of the matter we are of the view that the Forum has arrived at a right conclusion while giving a finding in this regard against the appellants."

From the above observations of the fora below one thing is clear that the furniture was definitely defective and the defects were major. There is no substance in the argument of the petitioners that had he known the defects he would have repaired the same. The fact is that the complainant informed him about the defects, but no response was made from the petitioners. The State Commission has observed after seeing the photographs that there were cracked panels, bent surface, detached joints and broken locks and the drawers. Thus, deficiency on the part of the supplier petitioners is definitely there.

I find some force in the arguments of the petitioners that the complainant has used the furniture for about eight months and therefore, the petitioners should not have been asked to return the total price along with interest in lieu of the returned furniture by the complainant. From the observations of the District Forum in para 8 of its order as quoted above, it seems that the complainant has given order of furniture on the basis of the advice by the architect and the petitioners also state that they have supplied the furniture as per the requirement of the architect. It also seems that the complainant was under impression that architect had only given the requirement of featherlite brand of furniture. However, the same was not supplied by the petitioners and both the fora below have given a clear finding that there is no document to prove that the petitioners were to supply featherlite brand of furniture.

Thus, in this regard, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioners/OPs. The District Forum order further mentioned that the complainant sent e-mail to the architect and requested him to replace the furniture with featherlite brand furniture, however, the architect did not respond. This goes on to show that the architect had not approved the featherlite brand of furniture at the first place and this also confirms that the furniture that was sent by the petitioners may have been approved by the architect. Be that as it may, whatever, furniture was approved by the architect, it does not give any right to the petitioners to supply defective pieces of furniture. As the furniture has been retained by the complainant, and when it would be returned to the OPs it would become older, so in this scenario, I am of the view that the petitioners are liable to refund of purchase price of Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant, but without any interest. Similarly, I do not find any reason to award compensation to the complainant as the complainant is getting the full price back of the furniture supplied even after using the same for eight months. The award of cost of Rs.2500/- by the District Forum is maintained.

Based on the above discussion, revision petition is partly allowed and order dated 13.10.2015 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the petitioners would be liable to pay Rs.5,50,000/- (rupees five lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant without any interest. The order relating to compensation of Rs.50,000/- is also set aside. The order in respect of cost of Rs.2,500/- is upheld. The order of the State Commission also stands modified accordingly. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @8% from the date of this order till actual payment. The petitioners shall take back the furniture within this period and pay the amount at the same time.