1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a bed set worth Rs. 60,000/- and a table set for Rs. 20,000/- from the respondents on 25.3.2010. The respondent gave life time guarantee and promised to deliver the above said furniture within three days and he delivered the bed set on 28.3.2010 but he did not provide table set. For delivery of table set the respondents asked for further time, at which the complainant gave then time for further three days because on 01.4.2010 there was marriage. The respondents did not fulfill promise due to which the complainant faced mental agony and humiliation. After the marriage the respondents sought further five days for delivery of table set. The bed set which had been delivered to the complainant was defective which had cracks and was of substandard quality. The respondent did not deliver the furniture as per quality which he had shown to the complainant at the time of booking of the order. For the delivery of table set the respondent did not fulfill his promise and offered to purchase dinning set available in his showroom. The complainant paid extra amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent and purchased a dinning set. Whole of the furniture delivered to the complainant by the respondents is of low quality. The complainant asked the respondent to replace the above said furniture with the same quality of wood which was shown to him in the showroom but they refused. The complainant sent legal notice and afterwards filed the instant complaint by claiming loss of Rs. 95,000/- which was paid for the furniture and expenses of travelling Rs. 5,000/-. He has also claimed Rs. 4 lac as compensation for mental agony due to faulty service of the respondent.
2. 2 The respondents appeared in the court and submitted their written reply in which they denied allegations leveled by the complainant against them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. 3 The complainant has attached photocopy of legal notice which is Mark E, original postal receipt is Mark F. Mr. Muhammad Raheel Younas Government Contractor was directed to visit the spot and to inspect the disputed furniture and to furnish his repot about the quality of the furniture. The report of the above said Mr. Muhammad Raheel Younas is Mark A while his covering letter is Mark B.
4. 4 Both the learned counsels argued their versions. As per version of the complainant the complainant purchased a bed set worth Rs. 60,000/- and table set for Rs. 20,000/- on 25.3.2010. The bed set was delivered to the petitioner but the table set was not delivered to the complainant as per promise. Afterwards the complainant paid extra amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent and purchased a dinning set instead of table set. As per version of the complainant the respondent have provided faulty services to the complainant by not delivering the furniture on due date agreed between the parties. As per his version the above said furniture is of low quality and defective. As per report Mark A the respondents have used very low quality wood. The sheet has also been used of low quality and that dangerous cracks have been developed between the joints wood and sheets. Finishing and polish is also of low quality. The market value of disputed furniture on showroom is at maximum Rs. 35,000/- and the present market value of disputed furniture after the usage is from Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/-. As per Mark C the respondents have received Rs.
5. 60,000/- from the complainant for bet set of five pieces and Rs. 35,000/- for dinning set.
6. 5 The purchase of the disputed furniture by the complainant has been admitted by the respondents. They have admitted that they received Rs. 95,000/- for the above said disputed furniture. The report Mark A clearly shows that not only the respondents have provided low quality furniture to the complainant but also they charged from the complainant of high quality furniture.
7. 6 In these circumstances the respondents are directed to pay back Rs. 95,000/- to the complainant and take back the disputed furniture which was delivered to the complainant. The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs. 4 lac but he provided no documentary proof in this regard. Hence no damages can be claimed by the complainant in the present position.
8. Therefore the complaint in hand is hereby accepted with costs. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.