BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 472/2022 (Filed on 08.12.2022)
ORDER DATED: 29.06.2024
Complainant:
Al Nazeeb S., S/o Salahudeen, T.C. 25/1045, Nazeeb House, House No. 26, Vrindavan Gardens, SUT Hospital Compound, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Ali K. Rahim, Proprietor, Door and Decors (Babu Group), Kochulloor, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.
-
ORDER
SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration. After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party to appear before this Commission on 06.02.2023. The said notice was served to the opposite party on 10.01.2023. On 06.02.2023 one counsel proposed to appear for opposite party and hence the case was adjourned to 25.02.2023 for vakalath and version of the opposite party. On 25.02.2023, the opposite party was absent and there was no representation and hence the case was adjourned to 20.04.2023. When the case came up for consideration on 20.04.2023 the opposite party was absent and no vakalath and version filed and hence the opposite party was called absent and set ex-parte.
3. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is employed in Gulf and when he came to his native place for a short leave, as he wants to replace the doors and windows of his residential house, he contacted the opposite party and the opposite party undertook the work to replace the doors and windows with good quality teakwood for which the opposite party estimated the cost as Rs. 1,50,000/-. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party by cash and the remaining Rs. 50,000/- was paid through bank transfer. The complainant also informed the opposite party that he has to leave India on 10.12.2021 and hence the work should be completed before 08.12.2021. The opposite party failed to do so and on 09.12.2021 the opposite party supplied two door frames and two window frames to the complainant. In the above circumstances, the complainant was forced to cancel the flight ticket already booked for the scheduled journey on 10.12.2021. Subsequently on 23.12.2021, the opposite party supplied wooden doors etc. which were on verification by the carpenters at the site, found that those items are of low quality and hence returned the same to the opposite party on the same day without unloading those goods at the premises of the complainant. Subsequently the complainant left to Gulf and tried to contact the opposite party for refund of the amount or to replace the already fixed low quality door frames and window frames with good quality teakwood. Finally the opposite party declined to pay back the amount or to replace the wooden frames and doors and asked the complainant to recover the amount from the opposite party by filing complaint before the court. The complainant’s mother filed a complaint before the Medical College Police Station and the complainant also issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party claiming refund of the amount or replacement of the doors. The complainant further submits that he has suffered great stress and mental agony due to the act of the opposite party and hence according to the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the above circumstances, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.
4. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9 from the side of the complainant and the expert commission report is marked as Ext. C1. The opposite party being declared ex-parte, there is no affidavit or documents from the side of the opposite party.
5. Issues to be considered are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
- Order as to costs?
6. Issues (i) to (iii): Heard. Perused the affidavit, documents and records. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9 were produced and marked. The complainant also filed an application as I.A. No. 271/2023 for appointment of an expert commissioner to evaluate the quality of the wooden materials supplied by the opposite party and also to measure the quantity of the wooden materials supplied to the complainant’s premises along with the value of the same. The application was allowed and Mr. Sujith Kumar S.K., Senior Instructor of Govt. ITI, Chackai was appointed as the expert commissioner and the expert commissioner has filed a report and the said report is marked as Ext. C1. Ext. P1is the copy of the account statement showing debit of Rs. 50,000/- from the account to the opposite party and Ext. P1 (a) is the cash receipt voucher for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. P2 series is the copy of the complaint submitted before the Police by the mother of the complainant. Ext. P2 (a) is the copy of the relevant page of the complaint register maintained at the police station. Ext. P3 is the copy of the lawyer notice issued to the opposite party on behalf of the complainant. Ext. P4 is the copy of the order form. Ext. P5 is the copy of the returned lawyer notice with postal acknowledgment. Ext. P6 is the copy of the confirmed flight ticket of the complainant and his family members. Ext. P7 is the copy of the flight ticket cancellation details. Ext. P8 is the copy of the WhatsApp message issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P9 is the copy of the invoice issued by Vrindavanam Timbers & Furniture to the complainant. As already pointed out, the expert commission report is marked as Ext. C1. Exts. P1 & P1 (a) proves that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the opposite party towards consideration for the wooden work undertaken by the opposite party. Exts. P2 & P2(a) proves that the complainant’s mother has filed a complaint against the opposite party before the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on 12.10.2022. Ext. P3 proves that the complainant has raised demand for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by him to the opposite party through a lawyer notice. Ext. P4 order form proves that the details of wooden work entrusted by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P5 proves that the opposite party not accepted the registered notice issued on behalf of the complainant. Ext. P6 proves that the complainant has booked a confirmed ticket from Thiruvananthapuram Airport to Doha for himself and also for Mrs. Sulfath Sofia. Ext. P7 proves that the complainant has cancelled the Ext. P6 confirmed ticket. Ext. P8 WhatsApp message proves that the complainant has demanded back Rs. 1,50,000/- from the opposite party. Ext. P8 also shows that the opposite party has read the message and the message was delivered to the opposite party at 7.29 am on 20.12.2021. Ext. P9 is the tax invoice issued by Vrindavanam Timbers & Furniture for Rs. 19,016/- for purchase of teakwood by the complainant. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant and hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged and we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts. P1 to P9 documents coupled with Ext. C1 expert commission report, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party. Ext. C1 report shows that the measurement of the wooden materials supplied by the opposite party to the complainant is 7.5 cubic feet and also observed that the wooden materials supplied by the opposite party to the complainant are of low quality wood. It is also observed by the Expert Commissioner that the durability of the materials supplied by the opposite party may be very short and the purpose for which the complainant replaced the wooden door frames will not be materialized by using this low quality wooden material. From the available evidence before this Commission and in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It is also came in evidence that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party. As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussion, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) along with Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance or realization. After compliance of the order, the opposite party can take back the supplied wooden materials from the residential premises of the complainant.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 29th day of June 2024.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 472/2022
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Al Nazeeb
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of the account statement
P1(a) - Copy of cash receipt voucher issued by opposite party
P2 - Copy of complaint submitted before the Medical College Police
Station
P2(a) - Copy of the relevant page of the complaint register
P3 - Copy of lawyer notice issued to opposite party
P4 - Copy of the order form
P5 - Copy of the returned lawyer notice with postal acknowledgment
P6 - Copy of the confirmed flight ticket
P7 - Copy of flight ticket cancellation details
P8 - Copy of WhatsApp message
P9 - Copy of invoice issued by Vrindavanam Timbers & Furniture
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
V COURT EXHIBIT:
C1 - Commission Report
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
