BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.18/2009 Order dated this the 24th day of July 2009 COMPLAINANT/S 1. Sri.Rathnappa S/o Basavarajappa, R/o Old No.38/1, New No.16/12, 3rd Cross, Vidhya Nagar, Mandya. 2. Sri.Nagarajappa S/o Basavarajappa, R/o Somashila Nilaya, Vidhya Nagara, Mandya City. (By Sri.H.B.Chandra Shekar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Dinesh Interiors Wud Fund, # 10, Prestige Trident, Airport Road, Domlur, Bangalore 560 071. 2. The Authorised Signatory / Executive, Dinesh Interiors Wud Fund, # 10, Prestige Trident, Airport Road, Domlur, Bangalore 560 071. (By Sri.K.M.Basavarajappa., Advocate) Date of complaint 17.02.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 26.02.2009 Date of order 24.07.2009 Total Period 4 Months 28 Days Result The complaint is allowed in part, directing the Opposite parties to refund Rs.70,000/- with compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- and take back the wood and steel materials supplied by them to the 1st complainant within 4 weeks. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against the Opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- alleging deficiency in service. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are thus;- The 1st & 2nd Complainants are brothers. The complainant has constructed a residential house and he wanted interior decoration furnishing to his newly constructed house at Mandya. At the request of the 1st Complainant approached his brother Nagarajappa who has some ideas about the interior decoration introduced the Opposite parties who the interior decorators and the Opposite parties assured to supply good materials, durable one, waterproof and best goods and they would furnish interior decorations as suggested by the complainant both in wooden as well as steel materials and so the complainant decided to place orders and on 25.05.2007, 2nd Opposite party visited the house of the complainant to take measurements and on that day, the complainant placed orders for supply of interior decoration materials for kitchen, dressing unit, wardrobe, T.V. sets, etc., and took orders and gave copy of the quotation to the complainant with diagram to show the elevations and outlook of interior decoration for Rs.2,60,598/- for supply of above materials and labour charges. The complainant agreed for the same and complainant gave consent to supply goods of kitchen first and in this regard, the Opposite parties gave quotation for Rs.1,07,989/-. The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- on 25.05.2007 as 40% of the specified amount for confirmation of the orders and Opposite party issued a voucher. Again, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- on 26.05.2007 and Opposite party issued a voucher and again Rs.25,000/- on 14.06.2007, totally the complainant has paid Rs.70,000/-. Since, the complainant came with his brother Nagarajappa, who knows the Opposite parties very well, at that time of issuing the receipts and bills, it was given in the name of the complainants brother Nagarajappa. But the amount to the goods was paid by the complainant and it is the complainant who placed orders. After receiving the amount, the Opposite parties have supplied only kitchen set which includes wooden and steel materials. The goods supplied were not of good quality. The Civil Contractor of the complainant before fixing the said wooden and steel materials wanted to know the quality and demonstrated by putting a wooden material in water, suddenly it started to bulging and started to cut into piece by piece. The Civil Contractor informed that the materials supplied are not of good quality, not durable one. Immediately, the complainant contacted the Opposite party through phone and the Opposite party assured to visit the spot and set right, but they did not turn up. After long gap, the Opposite party sent steel compartments and racks. Though the complainant restricted not to unload the goods, but at the request of the Opposite party, they were delivered to the complainant, but the said steel compartments and racks were also not of good quality and they were already turned rust. Though, this was brought to the notice of the Opposite parties over phone, the Opposite parties have not made any efforts to set right and therefore, the complainant contacted the Opposite parties to take all materials supplied by repaying the damages. Because of the attitude of the Opposite parties the opening ceremony of the house was postponed and the complainant was put to mental agony. Even, the complainant lodged a complaint before Byatarayana Pura Police Station and Opposite parties appeared before the police and undertook to settle the matter, but did not settle. Therefore, the legal notice was issued on 03.01.2009 claming compensation and there was no reply. Therefore, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in supplying defective kitchen set compartments of wooden and steel materials. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs.70,000/- paid by him for the materials and Rs.1,56,000/- for the kitchen setup done by the another interior decorator and Rs.25,000/- for removing the articles fixed by the Opposite party, Rs.50,000/- for loss of reputation, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental strain, agony, Rs.25,000/- for transportation charges, Rs.4,000/- for the expenses towards the phone calls, visiting the Opposite party. 3. The Opposite parties have filed common written version. Denying all the allegations made in the complaint, the Opposite parties have contended that the complainant is not a Consumer and in fact, the quotation was sought for by Mr.Nagarajappa and work agreed to be done as per the instructions of Mr.Nagarajappa and 1st Complainant is only gratuitous beneficiary and as such the complaint is not maintainable. They have denied that the brother of the complainant by name Mr.Nagarajappa who has some ideas about the interior decoration is not within the knowledge of Opposite parties and the complainant approached his brother Nagarajappa and requested him to introduce the Opposite party to the complainant. It is also denied that since the complainant came with his brother Nagarajappa who knows the Opposite party very well, at the time of issuing the receipts and bills it was given in the name of complainants brother Nagarajappa. As per normal business practice the receipts bills etc., are issued to the person who placed orders. It is denied that the amount to the goods was given by the complainant and complainant placed orders. Since, the orders was placed by Nagarajappa and amounts were paid by Nagarajappa bills and receipts were issued in his name and first complainant is total stranger to the Opposite parties. There is no cause of action in favour of Nagarajappa as nothing was complained by him and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Mr.Nagarajappa approached the Opposite parties to get the work done and only on his choosing particular items were issued and materials were supplied. However, same is subject to Mr.Nagarajappa accepting the price quoted by the Opposite parties for the work required to be done. The Opposite parties have also represented to Mr.Nagarajappa that they are going to supply good materials, durable one, waterproof and also the best goods. However, the supply of materials are subject to their own natural wear and tear and also subject to placing the order for the said goods. Mr.Nagarajappa took the Project Manager to Mandya and has taken to complainant house for taking measurements for planning for layout of kitchen. Mr.Nagarajappa has taken quotation to place orders for only kitchen and materials quotation was handed over to the Mr.Nagarajappa who placed orders. There is no privity of contract between the 1st Complainant and Opposite parties. It is denied that the materials supplied by the Opposite parties are defective and not of good quality and the steels racks are rusted. The Opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. Since Nagarajappa has failed to comply the terms and condition, installation work could not progress and subsequently Mr.Nagarajappa has given up entire proposal and retained the materials supplied. Hence, there is no deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the 1st Complainant is examined and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C. 12. On behalf of the Opposite parties Mr.Dinesh, the Proprietor of 1st Opposite party is examined. 5. During trail, a Commissioner was appointed and after inspecting the materials in question, he has submitted report. 6. We have heard both the sides. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite parties have supplied defective and inferior quality kitchen set up materials? 3. Whether the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation claimed? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the customer and Consumer of the Opposite parties and placed orders for the interior decoration of the newly constructed house, firstly for the kitchen set up and at that time his brother Nagarajappa the 2nd Complainant who has some ideas about the orders of interior decoration and who knows the Opposite parties introduced complainant. But the Opposite party has issued quotation and receipts in the name of Nagarajappa, in the quotation and bills, though the complainant has paid the amount and in fact the Opposite party staff inspected the house and took measurements and supplied the materials of kitchen interior decoration first as per the orders. But, the Opposite parties have denied those allegations and it is the contention of the Opposite parties that there is no privity of contract between the 1st Complainant and the Opposite parties and Mr.Nagarajappa placed orders receiving the quotation for kitchen set and Nagarajappa has paid only Rs.70,000/-, though he was required to pay balance of Rs.87,190/- upon supply of materials and the materials were supplied to Nagarajappa and he is the Consumer. 10. Of course, Ex.C.1 the copy of the quotation reveals that it is in the name of Mr.Nagarajappa for kitchen set and the quotation is for Rs.1,07,989/-, this quotation comprises the drawing also. The complainant has produced Ex.C.2, C.3 and C.4 the receipt vouchers issued by the Opposite party for Rs.15,000/- on 25.05.2007, Rs.30,000/- on 26.05.2008 and Rs.25,000/- on 14.06.2007 respectively in the name of Mr.Nagarajappa, so totally Rs.70,000/- is paid. But at the place of client signature in Ex.C.2, C.3, C.4, the complainant has put signature. It is admitted by 1st Opposite party, Proprietor in the evidence that Nagarajappa had given address of the house to which interior decoration is to be made and it is also admitted that apart from Nagarajappa the complainant visited the Office of the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties and suggested the models to be installed and in fact the complainant had met him once and later he was visiting the staff and directed the staff to visit his house to take measurements and the complainant was present at the time of fixing the materials to the house saying that it is his house. So, these materials are sufficient to hold that the complainant is a Consumer cum beneficiary of the Consumer, because the receipt vouchers Ex.C.2 to C.4 were issued to the complainant when payment was made, though it is in the name of Nagarajappa the brother of the complainant. It is also admitted fact that the complainant gave a complaint to Byatarayanapura, Police Station as per Ex.C.7 on 21.08.2008 and the Proprietor of 1st Opposite party was summoned to police station and enquired. In fact, the complainant has produced the brochures of interior decoration as per Ex.C.9 to C.12. Further, the 2nd Complainant to implead him as a 2nd Complainant, has filed affidavit and has sworn that the complainant is his brother and took for interior decoration orders and introduced the Opposite parties and the complainant placed orders to the Opposite parties, but Opposite parties have entered his name in the document and he never acted as a customer to the Opposite party and the complainant is the Consumer. Therefore, these materials are sufficient to prove that actual consumer is the complainant and therefore, the complaint is a consumer and complaint is maintainable and we answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 11. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- The complainant has pleaded that the wooden and steel materials for kitchen set interior decoration supplied by the Opposite parties are defective and of inferior quality and the steel racks and compartments were already turned rust. It is admitted that as per Ex.C.1 the quotation was given for kitchen set only for Rs.1,07,989/- and after payment of Rs.70,000/- in installment as per Ex.C.2 to C.4, the wooden materials for kitchen sets were supplied and later steel racks were supplied. The Opposite parties have denied that the materials supplied are of inferior quality and steel racks and compartments were already rusted and their contention is since the Nagarajappa the customer did not comply in payment of balance of Rs.97,190/-, the installation work could not progress and Nagarajappa has given up entire proposal and retained the materials supplied, but this contention cannot be accepted at all, because admittedly as per Ex.C.1 the quotation is only for Rs.1,07,989/- for the kitchen set materials. Admittedly Rs.70,000/- was paid to the Opposite party and the remaining balance is only Rs.37,989/- whereas the office parties has gone to the extent for the balance of Rs.97,190/-. It is an admitted fact about the dispute of supplied materials, the complainant approached the Byatarayanapura Police Station and the 1st Opposite party, Proprietor appeared before the police. Even, the complainant got issued a legal notice as per Ex.C.8 on 03.01.2009 and though Opposite parties were served as per the postal acknowledgement Ex.C.8(a) & C.8(b), the Opposite parties have failed to reply the contents of the notice. So, the presumption is that the Opposite parties have no grievance against the allegations made in the legal notice. 12. Further, according to the complainant, the Civil Contractor of the complainant tested the wooden material putting into water which started to bulge and started to cut into piece by piece and then he informed the same to the Opposite party through over phone and though assured to visit and set right, they did not turn up. According to the complainant, after long gap the Opposite parties sent steel compartments and racks and the said steel compartments and racks were already turned rust. Though he objected for unloading, at the request of the Opposite parties, he allowed to deliver and informed the defective steel materials and they assured to rectify the same, but they did not turn up. Further, according to the evidence of the complainant, since the Opposite parties did not turn up, the complainant got removed the wooden materials fixed in the kitchen and got the model of kitchen set up by Apoorva Valuer by obtaining the quotation detailed estimate as per Ex.C.5 and he has also produced Ex.C.6 the receipt for having paid Rs.1,56,000/-for the kitchen set interior decoration. 13. Apart from the above oral evidence, a Commissioner, Mr.M.K.Nagaraju, Consulting Civil Engineer and Approved Valuers, was appointed and he has inspected the materials supplied in the presence of advocates of both sides and found the 12 cabinet box, 5 steel cages, 2 back sets safely locked in the sit out room. According to this report, the kitchen cabinet box are made out by hardboard materials and not suitable to weigh 40 mm granite slab and they are not waterproof materials, because if water drops fell on this, it will be sink through this and also bulkaged the same lightly. In fact, he has conducted a demonstration by putting a piece of hardwood in water and suddenly the material started to bulge, therefore it is sub-standard materials. Further, he has reported that the used screw typed materials fitting of hardboard are of not good quality and the screws will not be usable, further the holes are damaged. He has further reported, the steel racks supplied is very lowguage and also rusted condition and the side wheels of the said rack is one of the steel coated items/trally channels and it is also in rusted condition. Finally, he has opined the kitchen cabinet materials are not good and without any durability and not manufactured by standard company. Though, the Opposite parties have filed objections to the Commissioner report, the objections are not tenable and no proper reasons proved to reject the report, because he is a Civil Engineer Graduate and Consulting Engineer and Approved Valuer. The Commissioner report is having two photos, it shows that the steel racks shows the collour of steel and also rusted condition rods. Therefore, the Commissioner report clearly established that the wooden materials and also steel materials for the modular kitchen set supplied by the Opposite parties are of inferior quality and sub-standard and they are defective. 14. The complainant has proved that the wooden fixtures fixed by the Opposite party staff were got removed and then he got installed new modular kitchen set up through Apoorva Valuers. Therefore, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in supplying defective materials. 15. POINT NO.4:- The complainant sought for compensation under the following heads:- a) For repayment of the amount paid by the complainant to the Opposite party in respect of the purchase and for fixing the kitchen setup. Rs.70,000/- b) For payment of the amount paid by the complainant towards the kitchen setup done by Apoorva Valuers. Rs.1,56,000/- c) Amount paid towards labour for removing of the articles which were fixed by Opposite party. Rs.25,000/- d) Loss of reputation of the complainant. Rs.50,000/- e) For suffering mental strain, agony by the complainant on account of acts of Opposite party. Rs.1,00,000/- f) Transportation charges for bringing the articles. Rs.25,000/- g) Expenses incurred by the complainant towards phone calls, visiting the Opposite party in person etc. Rs.4,000/- TOTAL Rs.4,30,000/- Of course, since the complainant has proved that the materials supplied by the Opposite parties are defective nature and sought for refund of the amount paid by him and Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.70,000/- and some compensation for removal of the some items. Admittedly, only Rs.70,000/- is paid to the Opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.70,000/- and the Opposite parties are entitled to take back the materials supplied by them. In addition that the complainant has sought for labour charges of Rs.25,000/- for removal of the boxes fixed in the kitchen. It is too exaggerative. The other claims are also untenable and exaggerative and considering the facts of the case, the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards charges for removing the boxes and mental agony and other expenses. 16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed in part, directing the Opposite parties to refund Rs.70,000/- with compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- and take back the wood and steel materials supplied by them to the 1st Complainant within 4 weeks. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of July 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
