The case of the complainant is as follows. 

 

            The opposite party had offered to manufacture with 1^st grade teak wood and delivered 3+2 sofa set, one Divan coat and one table to the complainant for an amount of Rs.27,500/-. On the assurance made by the opposite party the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance to the opposite party and ordered the above said items. On 24-11-07 the opposite party delivered the ordered furniture items and received the balance amount of Rs. 17,500/- from the complainant on the same day. The opposite party made believe that all the 4 furnitures were manufactured with the 1^st grade teak wood and if any problem arising out of it the opposite party has the responsibility for  4 furnitures. The furnitures were transported by the complainant with the mini lorry owned by Shri. Raju Payyanpally bearing Reg.No.KL-5-3047 to his daughter’s residence at Neloor. On December 2007 one expert Asari  examined the furniture and he told that all the furniture were made by poor quality wood ie “Eal Waka”. Then complainant approached the opposite party and demand that the poor quality furniture would be taken back and delivered new 4 furniture manufactured with 1^st grade teak wood. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to compensate the complainant. Hence the complainant approach the Institute of Consumer Protection and education centre at Pala and sent notice to the opposite party through them. But the opposite party has not made any reply even after accepting the notice from them. Then on

 2-7-2008 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party. The opposite party  received the notice, but the opposite party has not take any action to rectify the defects or sent any reply to the layer notice. Hence this complaint.

 

            The notice were served with the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party and the complainant had no dealings as alleged in the complaint in connection with the furnitures. The opposite party normally manufacture furniture on getting the order from the customers with 1^st grade woods. Thus the opposite party has plenty of orders  for manufacturing the furnitures. After completing the furnitures the customers receive the items and transported them on their own costs. The complainant has ill motive to tarnish the reputation and good name of the opposite party in the locality. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. One witnesses examined as PW2 documents were marked as exhibits A1 to A5. The opposite party filed Proof Affidavit and  was examined as DW1.

            The Forum appointed a Commissioner to inspect the furniture on the application of the complainant by giving opportunity to  both sides to submit a panel of experts. The commissioner submit a report which is marked as exhibit C1.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents, evidence and commission report. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party  delivered the 4 furniture items, for an amount of Rs.27,500/- to the complainant, made of poor quality wood. According to him the opposite party had assured that they would manufacture and deliver the 4 furniture items by using 1^st grade teak wood. As far as the complainant is concerned the wood which the opposite party used for manufacturing the furniture was poor quality wood ie “Eal Waka”. The opposite party has taken a contention that there was no such dealings with the complainant as alleged in the complaint. According to the opposite party they had done only on getting order for manufacturing the furniture then they will manufacture the items with 1^st grade woods. The specific case of the opposite party is that there was no transaction between the complainant as alleged in the complaint: The expert commissioner  filed the report ie C1. From Ext.C1 it can be seen that the furniture was manufactured with the wood  “Eal Waka”. From the available evidence and documents it can be seen that there was dealings between complainant and the opposite party. We have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant ie. PW1 and PW2. Moreover the expert commissioner’s report C1 it can be seen that the furniture which was manufactured with the wood of “Eal Waka”. The complainant has some inconveniences and hardships due to the negligent act of the opposite party. The opposite party has not taken any steps for the alleged reliefs of the complainant even after accepting two notices from him. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the evidence of the complainant PW1 and PW2. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows.

We direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant for the inconveniences and pay Rs. 2000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order  not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment.

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

 

1) Ext.A1 is the copy of letter

2) Ext.A2 is the copy of letter dtd.22-4-2008

3) Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd.2-7-2008

4) Ext.A4 is the postal receipt

5) Ext.A5 is the postal A.D card

6) C1 is the commission report

Nil

PW1-Petitioner

PW2-Commissioner

DW1-Opposite party

 

By Order,