By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is a doctor by profession and he is working as an Associate Professor in M.E.S Medical College Hospital, Perinthalmanna. The first opposite party is conducting business of wood and timber and making of doors and windows. The second opposite party is the son of the first opposite party, who is assisting his father in his business. The first opposite party is selling timber items for the construction of house and engage in contract for manufacturing doors and windows by using timber and also arranging carpenters for manufacturing and its fixing of doors and windows. The first opposite party also running saw mill in connection with his timber business. The complainant approached the first opposite party in search of wood and carpenters for making windows and doors for construction of a house at Koppam in Palakkad district. The complainant purchased wood from the opposite parties and it converted into timbers from the saw mill owned by the first opposite party for making windows and doors of his house. According to the complainant, at the time of purchase of wood, the first opposite party represented that the teak wood was good for manufacturing of doors and windows and so teak wood kept in the premises of the complainant would be converted into timbers for making of doors and windows. The first opposite party also promised to arrange carpenters for making and fitting. Believing the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant purchased wood for making five doors and three windows and paid the price by way of both Google Pay account of second opposite party and in cash. The complainant paid Rs. 5000/- on 06/10/2021, Rs.33,566/- on 15/10/2021 and Rs. 10,000/- on 01/11/2021 by way of Google Pay account to the second opposite party as per the directions given by the first opposite party. The complainant also paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash to the first opposite party. The entire amount paid to the opposite parties consisted of price of wood, sawing fee and carpenter fee. According to the complainant he provided design of doors and windows on the basis of instruction given by his engineer to the opposite parties. After fitting of doors defects were found on the products purchased from the opposite parties. It is stated in the complaint that wooden planks of the doors were bended and large gaps were found between two door pieces and wooden reapers were also used to minimize the gap resulted in to decrease the quality of door panels. The complainant also found that the wood used for the manufacturing of doors was not the same one purchased by the complainant but instead the opposite parties used low quality wood. When the complainant found that low quality wood was also used for making windows and then he did not accept the same from the opposite parties. It is contended by the complainant that the doors were made not in accordance with design prepared by the engineer of the complainant. The measurement taken by opposite parties was not accurate and there was shrinkage of wooden planks resulting improper fitting of hinges. Wooden cracks were also seen on the planks. The wooden frames and planks were of low quality and due to the inefficiency in carpentry work there was lacking in finishing. Even though the opposite parties given assurance in making of doors and windows by using selected item of wood instead the opposite party made the doors and windows with low quality wood. When defects were found, the complainant contacted first opposite party. After inspection, the first opposite party assured that he would rectify the defects and replace the defective wooden planks. The first opposite party also promised that the windows would be replaced within a short span of time by using good quality wood. But the opposite parties did not take any action to rectify the defects. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service and defects in the products supplied also amounted to unfair trade practices under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Even though the complainant contacted opposite parties several times they evaded from their liability on lame excuses. So the complainant approached this Commission praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to refund the entire amount collected for doors and windows and to take back the defective doors. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in services and for pain and mental agony due to the acts of opposite parties. The complainant too prayed to get cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notices to the opposite parties. The complainant also filed IA No 460/2022 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the defects found in wooden doors manufactured by the opposite parties and to report the condition before the Commission. Considering the prayer in the application, Commission allowed the same and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed as prayed. After inspection a report was filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Notice sent to the first opposite party was returned as ‘unclaimed’. The second opposite party received the notice on 04/06/2022 but did not appear before the Commission. So the Commission set both opposite parties exparte.
3. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of examination- in- chief. The complainant also produced documents to support his contentions made in both complaint and affidavit. The documents produced by the complainant marked as Ext.A1 series to A4. Ext.A1 series documents are five photographs of doors supplied by the opposite parties along with copy of five respective designs of doors issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A2 document is the screen shot of amount Rs 33,566/- paid by the complainant to the second opposite party by way of Google Pay. Ext.A3 document is the screen shot of amount Rs. 5000/- paid by the complainant to the second opposite party by way of Google Pay. Ext.A4 document is the screen shot of amount Rs. 10,000/- paid by the complainant to the second opposite party by way of Google Pay. The report along with 5 photographs and CD filed by the Advocate Commissioner is marked as Ext C1 document.
4. Heard the complainant. Perused affidavit of the complainant, documents and Commission report. The points arised for the consideration of the Commission are:
- Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the complainant?
- If so, relief and cost?
5. Point No (1) and (2) :-
The complainant is that, he ordered to make wooden doors and windows after selecting teak wood from the opposite parties and paid total Rs.58,566/- as price to the opposite parties. According to the complainant he paid Rs.10,000/- in cash and balance amount paid through Google Pay. In order to show the payment made by way of Google Pay he produced Ext.A2 to A4 documents before the Commission. It is contended by the complainant that the supplied doors were defective and was in low quality. According to him the wooden planks used for doors are bended, the measurements of doors were inaccurate, large gaps were found between two door pieces and low quality wood was used for making doors. Even though the designs of the doors were handed over to the opposite parties by the complainant, the doors made by the opposite party did not match with the designs of the complainant. It is also contended that the wood selected by the complainant was not used by the opposite parties for making doors and windows. When same defect was found on windows made by the opposite parties, the complainant rejected the same. In order to show the nature, condition and defects of doors supplied by the opposite parties the complainant produced Ext.A1 series photographs along with the design of doors preferred by the complainant for making doors. Moreover the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner also supported the contention made by the complainant and report is marked as Ext.C1 document. So after evaluating the above narrated facts it can be seen that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint. There is no contra evidence available in this case as the opposite parties failed to submit versions and adduce evidences. Thus the Commission allows the complaint as follows:
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.58,566/-(Rupees Fifty eight thousand five hundred and sixty six only) to the complainant as the price of the wooden doors and windows remitted by the complainant to the opposite parties.The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are also directed to take back the doors from the complainant without creating any damage to the property of the complainant by bearing entire cost by the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% of interest from the date of order till realisation.
Dated this 30th day of November, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext A1: Series documents are five photographs of doors supplied by the opposite parties along with copy of five respective designs of
doors issued by thE complainant to the opposite parties.
Ext A2 :Document is the screen shot of amount Rs.33,566/- paid by the complainant to the second opposite party by way of Google Pay.
Ext A3 :Document is the screen shot of amount Rs.5000/- paid by the complainant to the second opposite party by way of Google Pay.
Ext A4 :Document is the screen shot of amount Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant to the second opposite party by way of Google Pay.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Ext. C1 : Advocate Commissioner’s report along with 5 photographs and CD.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
