IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 17thDAY OF APRIL2021
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.155/2019
Dr.Shailaja,
‘Lakshmi Nandanam’
Sree Nagar 57,
Kadappakkada P.O.,
Kollam 691 008.
Shan Mahal, Mylakkadu P.O.,
Kottiyam, Kollam. : Complainant
(By Adv.Shaji P.S.)
V/S
AshmonBatham,
Proprietor, Shreenath Global,
124, Vrindavan Palace, Opp:Eicher Motors,
Nipania Main Road, Indore 452010. : Opposite party
ORDER
Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.SC, LLB, Member
This is acase based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
The complainant is the owner of a residential building No.17/436 of Kollam Corporation. She has engaged Sri.SwathyShibi, Architect, with intended to renovate her above mentioned residential house and she wanted to make the renovations with best materials and for which she has selected long lasting materials on the advice of the said architect. Thus the complainant has decided to use High Pressure Laminate wall cladding to her residence on the recommendation of the architect that the selected cladding was highly durable and profitable in the long run and also it was said to be free of maintenance. The complainant has made enquires with the opposite party firm which in turn has contacted her over phone, email and whatsapp and send very attractive brochures to the complainant. Thereafter the opposite party made to believe the complainant that the opposite
party has a manufacturing plant in Indore in Madhya Pradesh and that the laminates manufactured by them are of high quality and which is sold under the Brand ‘Sunwood’ with a slogan ‘Beauty with Immunity’. Again the opposite party assured the complainant that the ‘Sunwood’ is a highly durable High Pressure Laminate(HPL) with a decorative surface suitable for exteriors and that is fade resistant, weather proof and termite proof. Moreover the Sunwoodwould act as a good resistant to UV rays and to atmospheric conditions,, resistant to swelling even in boiling water , fire and which can be easily maintainable and lasting for many years.
On the basis of the above said assurances and brochures the complainant has placed orders for the supply of 10 Nos. of 8x4 p.b laminate sheet 6 mm and same was supplied to the complainant for Rs.64,192/- as per the invoice No.200 dated 07.01.2018 issued by opposite party. The complainant has remitted Rs.35,000/- as advance from her bank account with State Bank of India to the account of ‘Shreenath Global’ maintained with ICIC Bank Vijayanagar Branch, Indoor and transferred Rs.29,192/- on 17.01.2018 and again send Rs.37,560/- to the account of ‘Shree Industries’ , a Sister concern of opposite party towards the affixture charges and availed the goods and services from opposite party on the advice of the said architect. But hardly with one month of the installation the ‘Sunwood’ High Pressure Laminate(HPL) began to fade. When the complainant informed the same with the architect, who replied that the same was happened due to the defective quality of the materials supplied by the opposite party. Though the opposite party has promised to replace the defective sheets who has not taken any steps for replacing the same. But due to the marriage of complainant’s son, she was constrained to replace the defective sheets with alternate materials thus the complainant has constrained to spend another 1,50,000/- for making the alternate arrangements by replacing the defective sheets, which caused severe mental agony and stress to her. According to the complainant all the sufferings stated above are occurred as a result of manufacturing defect and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Thereafter the complainant has send a legal notice to the opposite party on 03.11.2018 claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the cost of defective materials supplied and compensation for suffering caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service along with notice charge Rs.5,000/-. Though the opposite party has send a reply dated 20.11.2018 regretting the inconvenience and by promising full co-operation in settling the matter but till date no steps have been taken by the opposite party. Hence the complaint.
Opposite party entered appearance in response to the notice but has not chosen to file version, though sufficient opportunity was granted.Hence the opposite party set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and got marked Exts.A1 to A7 documents.
Complainant has not filed any notes of argument butadvanced oral argument.
Complainant has filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the invoice No.200 dated 07.01.2018 for Rs.64,192/- issued by the opposite party ‘Shreenath Global’. Ext.A2 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.11.2018 issued by the complainant to AshmonBethen, Proprietor. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt evidencing the sending of Ext.A2 notice. Ext.A4 is the reply notice send by the opposite party. Ext.A5 is the brochure of ‘Sunwood’. Ext.A6 is the final reminder whatsapp message send by Ar.SwathyShibi and Ext.A7 is the reply send by the opposite party through whatsapp.The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A7 documents would establish the case of the complainant. It is clear from the available materials that the ‘Sunwood’ High Pressure Laminate installed by the opposite party has begun to fade hardly with one month of its installation and when the complainant informed the matter to the architect, on whose direction she had opted High Pressure Laminate wall claddings, he said that the same was happened only due to the defective quality of the materials supplied by the opposite party. Ext.A4 reply send by the opposite party it is evident that opposite party has also admitting the fact that fading of laminate sheet occurred so early which indicate that the problem is with the quality of the product and the opposite party would contact with their architect and settle the issue and by which they have apologised to the complainant for all the inconvenience caused by them and also assured to the complainant that they would do all the needful coordinating with manufacturing company. Ext.A4 would further request the complainant to send back the defective sheets to Indoor office of opposite party so that they could convince the manufacturing company about the quality of the disputed laminate sheets and settle the issue with the complainant.
Through Ext.A7 reply send by the complainant she expressed her willingness to send some samples of damaged sheets to the opposite party provided the opposite party must take care of the package and courier expenses. Ext.A7 letter further reads that if the opposite party is ready to pay compensation cost plus the packing and transportation expenses then the complainant would be ready to send the damaged products as a whole because in Ext.A6 reply notice, the opposite party has already assured that they would replace the damaged HPL sheets with better and high quality sheets. But no step has been initiated from the part of opposite party to comply with the above assurance. In view of the above materials it is evident that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in supplying low quality HPL after realising the price of high quality product and also against the assurance made by them.
According to the complainant the defective sheets were already replaced with much better and higher quality product of another company as replacing the same was highly necessary in connection with the marriage of her son and thereby spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also brought out in evidence that the above act of the opposite party has caused much mental agony apart from monetary loss. In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.1,50,000/- being the cost of replacement of the defective HPL and also entitled to get compensation and costs.
In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- being the cost of replacing the defective laminate sheets with new one
- Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
- Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
- Opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complaint is at liberty recover the above amount with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum except for costs from the opposite party and its assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of April 2021.
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 : invoice No.200 dated 07.01.2018 for Rs.64,192/- issued by the opposite
party ‘Shreenath Global’.
Ext.A2 : copy of legal notice dated 03.11.2018 issued by the complainant to
AshmonBethen, Proprietor
Ext.A3 : postal receipt
Ext.A4 : the reply notice send by the opposite party.
Ext.A5 : brochure of ‘Sunwood’.
Ext.A6 : final reminder whatsapp message send by Ar.SwathyShibi
Ext.A7 : reply send by the opposite party through whatsapp
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
