KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 299/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 348/2013 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Managing Director, Mozart Global Furniture, N.H. Kottakkal, Kotttakkal P.O., Malappuram.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Anandan Nellikkott, S/o Appukkuttan, Athulvilla, Pallickal, Calicut University P.O., Malappuram.

(By Adv. Abdul Shukkur Arakkal)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 348/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (“the District Commission” for short). 

2.  The respondent purchased one office table, one book shelf and two office chairs for an amount of Rs. 40,600/- on 30.05.2013 from the appellant for giving the same as gift to the brother-in-law of the respondent.  The appellant assured that the said furniture items were made of high quality material and no damage would be caused to them at least for a period of five years.  However, within two months of purchase, the office table and the book shelf were found damaged due to fungi growth.  Therefore, the respondent was forced to take back the above said furniture from the house of his brother-in-law. He purchased another furniture for Rs. 28,000/- and presented it to his brother-in-law.  When the appellant was informed that the above said furniture items were damaged due to fungi growth, the appellant did not respond to it.  Therefore, a lawyer notice was issued on 17.08.2013.  Thereafter, the appellant sent a service person to the house of the respondent for inspecting the items.  The said service person rubbed the items with cloth.  Then, the original colour of the furniture appeared.  However, after a week, the said furniture was again found to be damaged due to fungi growth. 

3.  The appellant admitted the purchase of the above furniture items from the shop of the appellant.  However, the appellant contended that the appellant had cautioned the respondent that the table and the shelf should not be rubbed with wet cloth as the said items were made of MDF Board, which would be damaged if contacted with moisture.  For the said reason, the respondent was further cautioned that the above said items should not be kept in places having moisture.  After the sale, the respondent never contacted the appellant till the appellant received the notice.  Thereafter, the service person of the appellant went to the house of the respondent and on inspection, he found that the fungi growth appeared due to moisture.  The respondent was also convinced about the same. 

4.  The appellant and the respondent filed proof affidavits.  Exts. A1 to A5 were marked for the respondent.  DW1 was examined on the side of the appellant.  An Advocate Commission was taken out on the request of the respondent for the inspection of the furniture.  The Advocate Commissioner filed Ext. C1 report, after inspecting the furniture.    After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and consequently, the District Commission directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,240/-, being the cost of  item Nos. 1 and 2 in Ext. A1 bill and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the respondent.  It was further directed that on receipt of the amount, the respondent should return the table and the book shelf to the appellant.  The District Commission also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 

5.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records. 

6.  It is not disputed that the respondent purchased one office table, one book shelf and two office chairs from the appellant for an amount of Rs. 40,600/- as per Ext. A1 bill.  It is also not disputed that the said items were purchased for giving them as gift to the brother-in-law of the respondent.  The respondent contended that the said furniture got damaged within two months of its purchase due to fungi growth.  The request of the respondent to refund the money after taking back the furniture was not accepted by the appellant.

7.  The appellant would contend that the fungi growth was caused due to the mishandling of the table and book shelf by the respondent.  Admittedly, the table was a computer table for the computer and the shelf was for keeping the books. 

8.  The appellant admitted the damage caused to the book shelf and table due to fungi growth.  However, the appellant would contend that it was due to the rubbing of the furniture with wet cloth.  It was further contended by the appellant that the fungi growth was due to the moisture in the atmosphere where the furniture items were kept. 

9. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Commission inspected the furniture and filed Ext. C1 report. In Ext. C1 report, it is clearly stated that the inside and outside parts of the book shelf were damaged due to fungi growth.  Ext. C1 report would further show that the table was also damaged due to fungi growth.

10.  DW1 was examined to prove the case of the appellant.  However, DW1 had never seen the furniture.  DW1 had only hear-say information.  So, his evidence was rightly rejected by the District Commission.

11.  The materials on record, including the commission report and the contentions on both sides, would clearly show that the book shelf and table were damaged due to fungi growth.  The photographs produced and marked as Ext. A4 series would also prove the damage sustained to the above furniture items.  Even though it is contended that the respondent rubbed the furniture with wet cloth, which caused damage to the furniture due to fungi growth, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the said contention.  The table was admittedly purchased for the purpose of keeping the computer and its accessories.  Therefore, it cannot be normally expected that anybody would use wet clothes for cleaning such a table where electrical equipments are kept. The book shelf is meant for keeping books.  Therefore, it cannot be expected that anybody would clean such a book shelf with wet clothes.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the view that the evidence on record would clearly show that the book shelf and table purchased by the respondent as per Ext. A1 bill were damaged due to fungi growth.  Since there is no material to show that the said fungi growth was due to the rubbing of the furniture with wet clothes, as contended by the appellant, the contention of the respondent, that the said furniture items were made of low quality materials, appears to be correct.  The above discussion would lead to the only inference that the book shelf and the table purchased by the respondent from the appellant were made of low quality material, which resulted in causing damage to them due to fungi.  Though the respondent requested for refund of the amount paid by him, the appellant did not refund the amount.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, we have no hesitation to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  Consequently, the District Commission was perfectly justified in passing the order impugned.  The District Commission had taken a very lenient view and ordered only a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,500/-.  The further amount of Rs. 25,240/- ordered by the District Commission was the actual price at which the respondent had purchased the table and the book shelf as per Ext. A1 bill.  Having gone through the order impugned, we do not find anything to hold that the compensation or the costs ordered by the District Commission is harsh or excessive, calling for interference by this Commission.  The order of the District Commission to refund the purchase price of the furniture items cannot be also said to be arbitrary, calling for interference by this Commission. 

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed and order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 348/2013 stands confirmed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER