Shyam Sharma vs Sudhir Kumar Mishra

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Shyam Sharma against the order dated 24.04.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.2498/2014.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Lucknow (in short 'the District Forum') for directing opposite party to repair or replace sofa or refund cost of sofa along with interest and cost of litigation. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party and denied all the allegations. It was stated that the opposite party had not sold defective sofa. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to give repaired sofa or cost of sofa i.e. Rs.28,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation as Rs.5000/-. Then petitioner filed appeal against aforesaid order before the State Commission which partially allowed the appeal by reducing the compensation to Rs.5000/-from Rs.20,000/- and confirmed rest of the judgment of District Forum.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is no expert report to prove that the sofa set had any manufacturing defect. Both the fora below have accepted the averments made by the complainant only. In fact, the sofa set had the problem of stretching of the upper layer due to misuse by the complainant. The defects should have been supported by some expert report. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the complainant has used the sofa set for some time and therefore, the fora below could not have ordered 100% refund of the purchase price of the sofa set along with compensation.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. It is seen that the District Forum in its order has observed the following:-

"Its a admitted fact between the parties that complainant had purchased the disputed sofa set. After some time it started stretching place to place. Complainant had made the complaint in this regard, but opposite party had not accepted this and stated that it is damaged due to use in an improper way. Question is that whether there may be stretch after use for some time. There should not be stretch in sofa only after use for some days. Complainant had sent two parts of sofa set and he had only one part which was not brought by opposite party knowingly. It shows that there is manufacturing defect in sofa on account of which opposite party had brought only two parts.

From the above recording of fact, it is seen that within about 2-3 months of purchase of sofa set there were stretches on the upper layer of the sofa set and this clearly speaks about the bad quality of sofa set. The petitioner has alleged that no warranty or guarantee was given to the complainant. Therefore, he was not responsible for any defect in sofa set. This contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. When he has charged the money for the sofa set, he has some responsibility towards the quality of sofa set, even though no warranty/ or guarantee for the sofa set was given. The material supplied has to be of reasonable quality keeping the cost of the sofa set in mind. In fact, not giving any warranty or guarantee can also be taken as deficiency on the part of the petitioner. In the context of expert report, the State Commission has observed that in the present case, there is no need of any expert report, as the defects in the sofa set itself speak for themselves. In fact, the State Commission has observed the following:-

"This fact is indisputable /opposite party had sold the sofa set worth Rs.28000/- to complainant/respondent. Appellant had stated in para -10 of his written statement that sofa set is damaged on account of it misuse and he had repaired the parts of sofa which were damaged in 10 days, but complainant refused to take back. This indicates that sofa set was damaged in 4-5 months it also shows that appellant/opposite party had sold the bad quality of sofa set to complainant. As far as question relating to expert opinion is concerned it is not necessary because it itself indicates that bad quality of sofa was sold as admittedly sofa set was repaired within 4-5 months. In such type of cases expert opinion are not required where the principle of Res Ipsa Loquiter (the things speaks for itself) is applicable. District Forum has given the judgment after carefully and thoroughly considering the evidences which is lawful and legal, but district forum had awarded Rs.20,000/- compensation for mental agony is very excessive and it should be Rs.5000/- from the point of justice. As far as question relating to Rs.5000/- is concerned, it is proper. Accordingly appeal deserves to be partially allowed."

I agree with the observation of the State Commission that for a sofa set costing Rs.28,000/-, any expert report may not be required if the condition of sofa set itself speaks for bad quality of manufacturing. Moreover, appointing an expert would have burdened the complainant. It was also open for the petitioner/opposite party to have requested the forum for an appointment of an expert at his expenses.

From the observation made by the District Forum and the State Commission, it is clear that sofa set supplied by the petitioner was not of good/reasonable quality and was damaged within a short period from the date of supply of the same. In such situation, order of the District Forum for repairing of the sofa set at the first instance was a right and just order and in the alternative the refund is the only solution. It was open to the petitioner to have repaired the sofa set to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, he tried to prolong the matter under litigation by filing the appeal and then by filing present revision petition. The State Commission has already reduced compensation from Rs.20,000/-to Rs.5000/-. I do not find any further justification for giving additional relief to the petitioner, as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is seen in the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.2498 of 2014, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.3100 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.