BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM.

                                          Dated this the day of 29^th day of May 2023                    

           PRESENT:

          Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                      President

          Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                          Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N.,                                                            Member

                                            C.C. No. 299/2020

Complainant

          Mohankumar P., S/o.N.Bhaskara Menon, Kamalalayam, Mulamthuruthy,           Ernakulam District, Pin-682 314

 (By Adv.N.S.Sajith, XL/216/B3, Layam Square, Layam Road, Cochin-11)  

                    Vs.

1)       M/s.C.J.Plywood, Devikripa Building, Door No.33/1716, Kaniyapilly Road,        Behind Hotel Holiday Inn, Chakkarapparambu, Vennala, Kochi-682 028,
          rep.by its Proprietor.

2)       Jayan C.C, Choorakkattu Thundiyil House, Perumpilly P.O., Mulamthuruthy, Ernakulam

(O.P. 2 rep. by Adv.Kuriakose N.V., K.K.Road, Chempumukk, Ernakulam District)

O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1)     A brief history of the complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had entered into a contract with the 2^nd opposite party and availed their service to carry out the interior decoration work of the complainant’s house.  The complainant had authorized the 2^nd opposite party to purchase the necessary and required materials to carry out the interior works.  The 2^nd opposite party purchased VAJRAM PLUS’ and ‘PLATINUM’ branded plywood from the 1^st opposite party on 19/08/2017, 24.01.2017, 15.02.2017, and 19.08.2017 respectively for an amount of Rs.257791.55.  The purchased products were manufactured by the 1^st opposite party itself when the 2^nd opposite party made the said purchases, the 1^st opposite party had given firm assurance and guarantee regarding the superior quality and durability of the branded plywood.  The 1^st opposite party also give a life time guarantee to the 2^nd opposite party that the plywood purchased would not be damaged by borers and termites.  The 1^st opposite party also offered that if the plywood purchased was of inferior quality the same would be replaced free of cost without any formalities.  The 1^st opposite party also issued a letter ‘IPAD CLUB’ for the requisite life time guarantee.

        However, after a short period of two and a half years, the entire set of plywood purchased from the 1^st opposite party began to be eaten up by termites and bores and everything was ruined.  As a result, the full range of interior works that was carried out and completed in the complainant’s house has been destroyed. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and demanded that the entire plywood which was purchased from the 1^st opposite party be replaced or the price of the plywood coming to Rs.257791.55 be returned along with an amount of Rs.310000/- that was incurred for carpentry work filling charges etc.  When the complainant also approached the 1^st opposite party demanding the same relief, he was advised to apply a chemical coating on the plywood by means of an expensive spray-paint.  The complainant purchased the spray paint from the shop of the 1^st opposite party.  But this did not prevent the continuing damage to the plywood. 

        The 2^nd opposite party also approached the 1^st opposite party many times demanding the replacement of the defective plywood and reimbursement of the installation charges.

        A lawyer notice was issued to the 1^st opposite party.  There was no reply from the side of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant states that the plywood supplied by the 1^st opposite party was defective and of very low quality.  The complainant states that he is entitled to get Rs.567791.55 from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant also seeks a compensation of Rs.7500/- from the 1^st opposite party for the mental agony, humiliation, waste of time and physical hardships suffered by the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

2)     Notice

        Notices were sent to the opposite parties from this Commission.  Notice sent to the opposite party 1 seen served as per proof of delivery of the Postal Department.  The 1^st opposite party not appeared before the Commission in response to the noticed received and version not filed by them. Hence the 1^st opposite party is set ex-parte.

        Eventhough the notice sent to the 2^nd opposite party not seen served, 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed vakkalath on 15.12.2021 and prays for filing their version.  Ample chances were given to the 2^nd opposite party for filing their version, but they did not file their version before the Commission. Consequently, 2^nd opposite party is also considered as ‘Ex-parte’.

1. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which are marked as Exbt.A1 to A9.Complainant filed proof affidavit also.

On 16.09.2021 the complainant has filed an I.A168/2021 to appoint an Expert Commission to examine the paneling and interior woks done by the opposite parties in the complainant’s house.I.A.168/2021 allowed and the Expert Commissioner Sri.Shihab V.A filed the report and the expert Commissions Report is marked as Exbt.C1.

The Expert Commissioner also filed some photographs and a pendrive along with the Commission Report which are marked as Exbt.C2 and C3 respectively

Evidence closed and heard the complainant.

2.  The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience, we have considered issue Nos.(1) and (2) jointly

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased plywood and accessories for an amount of Rs.257791.55 from the 1^st opposite party for carrying out interior –decoration works. The 2^nd opposite party made the said purchase for and on behalf of the complainant.After a short period of two and a half years the entire set of plywood purchased from the 1^st opposite party eaten by termites and borers.The complainant also used a spray paint for spraying over the plywood to stop the damage.The plywood supplied by the 1^st opposite party was defective and of substandard quality.

We have verified the available documents filed in this case.

Exbt.A1 is a guarantee letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.As per Exbt.A1 guarantee letter, plywood purchased from the 1^st opposite party is guaranteed for life time against any attack from Borer and Termites.Exbt.A2 is also a guarantee letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.As per Exbt.A2 ‘D club’ branded plywood is certified by Bureau of Indian Standards with relevant ISI code under License No.CM/L-3380455.As per Exbt.A2, opposite party 1 offers time life guarantee against and attack from Borer and Termites.Exbt.A3 is a cash bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.95007.55for purchasing 6 mm VAJARAM plus plywood and 19 mm Vajram plus plywood (8x4).Exbt.A4 produced by the complainant is an estimate for Rs.15784/- but there was no seal, no date and nothing about the acceptance of money by the opposite party can be revealed from this document. Exbt.A5 is a bill for Rs.100262/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.Exbt.A6 is also a bill for Rs.33450/- issued by the opposite partyExbt.A7 is a bill for Rs.9034/-.Exbt.A8 is a lawyer notice dated 09.03.2020 sent to the 1^st opposite party through the complainant’s advocate.Exbt.A9 is the acknowledgment card of the lawyer notice.The 1^st opposite party accepted the lawyer notice on 21.03.2020.

The Commission appointed an Expert Commissioner to conduct an examination into the plywoods supplied by the opposite party and the expert commissioner submitted the report (C1) on 20.10.2021.The main points of the inspection report are as follows:

1. The interior work and panels of the house were found in a damaged condition by termites. 350 sq. ft of panels in the complainant’s house were destroyed.
2. The panels were found painted.  Since the panels were painted it was not possible to know the name of the company and other details of the panels.
3. The panels are partially damaged due to the attack of the termites.  They cannot be reused or repaired and hence new panels are required for the work.
4. The complainant has suffered a loss approximately five lakh rupees.

Exbt.C2 photographs and Exbt.C3 pen drive also produced by the Expert Commissioner.

From the available documents in this case deficiency in service is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant.The complainant in his complaint states that he had purchased materials for the interior work from the opposite party 1 for a total consideration for Rs.257791.55.The complainant in his affidavit of evidence stated that the bill of Rs.4252.95 has lost and hence cannot produced before this Commission.Exbt.A4 produced by the complainant is only an estimate for Rs.15784/-.There is no seal, no date. With this document produced by the complainant it cannot be seen that any amount has been paid to the opposite party.Hence we consider the Exbts.A3, A5, A6 and A7 documents for calculating the paid consideration.A total of Rs.237754.60 is calculated as the consideration paid to the opposite party for purchasing the plywood.As the bill of Rs.4250/- has not been produced regarding the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party that too has not been considered.

As per the Expert Commissioner’s Report the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh) C2 photographs also proves that the panels are destroyed.

As per the bills issued by the opposite party, the panels are purchased in the year 2017. This complaint is filed on 12.10.2020.Within a short span of two and a half years the plywood purchased from the 1^st opposite party became defective due to the attack of termites eventhough a life time warranty was provided by the opposite party.Due to the inferior quality of the panels they became defective within a short span.Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party 1.A lawyer notice was sent to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant’s Advocate N.C Sajith but there was no response from their side.

Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties.The opposite parties have inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service from the opposite party. The opposite party’s conscious failure to file their written version inspite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect also amounts to an admission of the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party.The Hon’ble National Commission in its order cited 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC) held a similar stance.

We found the issue Nos. (1) and (2) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party and the following orders are passed.

1. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,37,754/- to the complainant being the price of the products.
2. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,62,246/- as compensation for the loss sustained to the complainant as worked out by the Expert Commissioner.
3. The opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs.4000/- towards the costs of the proceedings.

                 The above orders shall be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this   29^th day of May  2023

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                     Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Sd/-

                                                                   D.B.Binu, President

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence.

Exbt. A1       : original Guarantee Letter issued by CJ Plywood

Exbt.A2        :: guarantee letter issued by the opposite party

Exbt.A3        : copy of Retail invoice dated 04.01.2017

Exbt.A4        : copy of estimate

Exbt.A5        : Copy of Estimate

Exbt.A6        : copy of Estimate

Exbt.A7        : Copy of Estimate

Exbt.A8        :: copy of legal notice

Exbt.A9        :: Acknowledgment card

Exbt.C1        : Commission Report

C2       :: Photographs

C3       :: Photographs

                                                                               C.C. No. 299/2020

                                                                Order dated 29.05.2023