Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/422

M/S IND ROYAL FURNITURE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

C JAGANADHAN - Opp.Party(s)

P KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

THE KERALA STATE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD,  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL-No. 422/2014

JUDGMENT  DATED. 07/09/2015

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 99/2008  on the file of CDRF,Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:-

            JUSTICE.  SRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI  : PRESIDENT

            SRI. V.V.JOSE                                    : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. M/s. Indroyal Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd,

Royal Plaza, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram,

Represented by its Managing Director.

2. N. Madhusoodhanan,

Managing Director,

M/s Indroyal Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd,

Royal Plaza, Pattom,

•  

(By Adv. P. Krishnan Kutty Nair)

 

                        V/S

RESPONDENT:

3. . Jaganadhan,

Palazhi, Edavakodu,

Sreekariyam P.O,

•  

 

(By Adv. B.A. Krishna Kumar)

6698606.                                                                                                  

JUSTICE . SRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

 

             This is an appeal filed by the  opposite party in CC. 99/2008 on the file  of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order of the forum dated March 31, 2014 directing  the opposite party  to refund Rs. 37,000

 

                                                             (2)

being the cost of the defective furniture supplied and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

 

            The case of the complainant as testified by him as Pw1 before the forum and as detailed in the complaint  in brief is this.

 

             Complainant  purchased a dining table for Rs. 20,800/- and  8 dining chairs for Rs.  16,200/- from the opposite parties on September 1, 2007.  On September 3, 2007 complainant purchased 10 mm glass for placing the same on the top of the dining table.  The glass  got cracked  due to uneven surface  of the table.  Further  furniture got  loosened on the joints.  In spite of repeated request opposite parties  were not prepared to replace the furniture or  cure the defects.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint for  refund of the price of the furniture  and also claimed compensation. 

 

             The first opposite party is M/s Indroyal furniture company, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director, second opposite party.  They in their  version  contended  thus  before the forum.    It is admitted that complainant had purchased the furniture mentioned  in the complainant from the opposite parties.  But there was no defect to the furniture.  Therefore the complainant has to be  dismissed. 

 

                                                             (3)

Complainant was examined as Pw1 and  he produced P1 to P5  and the show room Manager of the opposite party was examined as DW1  and the expert commissioner was examined as CW1 and his report  was marked  as  Exbt. C1 before the forum.  On  an appreciation of evidence  the forum found that the furniture supplied by the opposite parties  are defective  and  directed the opposite parties to refund the price of the furniture Rs. 37,000/- and also to pay 5,000/-  as compensation.  The opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the forum.

             Heard both the counsels.

             The following points arise for considerations.

 

             (1)Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

             (2)Whether the impugned order of the forum can be sustained.

 

The purchase of furniture from the opposite parties by the  complainant is admitted.  The only question to be decided is whether  the furniture  supplied  by the opposite parties are defective .  The  expert commissioner as  Cw1 testified before the forum as well as  reported in his  report Exbt.  C1  that the  surface

                                                             (4)

of the table  top  was  uneven   and in view  of that fact glass  placed  on the table got cracked.  He also testified that screw of furniture   was loosened  due to hole being  widened and that  as soft wood was used such a thing happened.  He would further say that even if the furniture  was repaired such a defect  cannot be cured and that the furniture is made of  poor quality of wood.  Exbt. P4  warranty card shows that the said defects occurred  within the warranty period. Therefore  forum is perfectly  justified in   relying on the evidence of CW1,  the expert commissioner  and   Exbt. C1 the report of the expert commissioner and finding that furniture supplied to the complainant was defective which is an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.    Finding of the forum on this  point is confirmed .

 

             The forum has ordered  refund of Rs. 37,000/- being the price of the furniture and to pay  compensation of Rs. 5,000/-  which appears to be reasonable.

 

             In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/-.

 

                                                            JUSTICE.  P.Q. BARKATH ALI  : PRESIDENT

 

                                                            V.V.JOSE                                      : MEMBER