SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction against the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the defective parts and Rs.25,000/- as cost and Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant .
Complaint in brief :-
On 7/3/2020, complainant entrusted interior work for his lottery shop at NCC Road, Thalassery with OP. The work entrusted is to manufacture and a work of 3 long table, Almirah with mirror including computer table and the complainant paid Rs. 2lakhs and obtained receipt from OP. The complainant noticed that material like iron bar used to make almirah and long table were rusted. On 2/8/2020, complainant paid Rs.50,000/- which was the balance amount to be paid. Even after the payment of full consideration, OP never rectified default nor provided any service. Hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, commission sent notice to OP. The OP received notice and entered appearance before the commission and filed their version .
Version of OP in brief:
The OP denied entire averments except those specifically admitted . The entrustment of interior work and payment of Rs.2 lakhs is admitted by OP, but denied the balance payment of Rs.50,000/- on 2/8/2020. All furniture entrusted to manufacture made by OP’s firm. After the completion of work, OP contacted complainant to deliver the furniture but the complainant responded to wait until his further information since the government has stopped sale of lottery in the context of pandemic and he was not in a [position to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- and thereby OP kept all furniture until further instruction from complainant. Lastly on August 2021, complainant opened the shop to install furniture and in addition to items. Complainant demanded 2 more rows on the top of almirah as the height of the cash counter was small and the same was taken back by the OP to add two more rows and the price for excess work was fixed for Rs.15,000/- which was also left unpaid by complainant. He used to quality materials. The complainant promised to pay the balance amount within 2 months and failed to pay even after one year and the complainant filed the complaint to lost whether the payment get waived. Hence there is no merit in the case and liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP?
- Whether there is any compensation & cost to the complainant?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 ,A2 and Ext.C1, Ext.A1 is the original receipt issued by OP. Ext.A2 is the visiting card of OP and Ext.C1 is the expert commission report. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. OP has no documentary evidence. OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as DW1. Both sides filed argument notes.
Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.
Issue No.1&2
Let us look in to the documents produced by PW1 to the answer Issues. According to Ext.A1, the receipt issued by OP ‘s shop shows the payment of Rs.2 lakh on 7/3/2020 towards the advance amount which was admitted by both parties and hence no more discussion required on that point.
As the OP contended that there is no contract between the complainant with regard to the materials should be used and the furniture kept in his shop for months. However, if there is no contract between complainant and OP with regard to the quality of materials, it is the prime duty of party to whom the work is entrusted to provide quality materials on the payment of huge amount as there is an implied contract.
The dispute between the parties arise on the payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- and the quality of materials used. In order to assess the quality of the materials used by OP to make the furniture, the commission relied on the expert opinion which was marked as Ext.C1. As per Ext.C1, the commission understood that the quality of materials used as the commissioner specifically reported that the quality of roads ply, steels used for making cupboard was of low quality and completely rusted and deteriorated. Moreover, the damages estimated by the commissioner is Rs.14,400/-. Hence the commission hereby reached into an assumption that complainant suffered loss due to the defective materials used by OP even after the payment of huge amount. The delay in supply of furniture was due to covid pandemic was admitted by the complainant. Lastly the payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was in dispute. During cross examination, PW1 deposed that he had paid the entire amount and on re-examination he specifically mentioned that the payment of balance total amount of Rs.50,000/- is enclosed and initial on the back side of Ext.A1 by OP, which was denied by OP. There is no other solid evidence to prove the payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- before the commission, only a mere deposition made by parties during the cross examination. Moreover, there is no other evidence before the commission that an additional cupboard was added to the existing furniture and excessive work cost Rs.15,000/-.
In conclusion the commission is in the view based on Ext.C1, that there is unfair trade practice from the part of OP as they provided cheap quality of materials even after the payment of huge amount. The complainant is entitled to get compensation on the basis of cost calculated by the Expert in Ext.C1. issue No.1 &2 answered in favour of complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.14,400/- as damages calculated by Expert commissioner and pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order . In default the amount of Rs.14,400/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-Receipt issued by OP dtd.7/3/2020
A2-Visiting card of OP
Ext.C1- Expert commission report
PW1-N.Surendran -complainant
DW1-Devadas.I.P- OP.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
