DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 09/12/2020 

CC/158/2020

Somakumar Nair,

    S/o Balasubhramaniam,

    Savinayas,

    Perunganam (P.O)

Palakkad – 678 542                                                  -         Complainant                                            

(By Adv. Joy Kanhirathinchalil)                       

                                                           V/s

1. Divya.B

    Proprietress Magic interio,

    Pazhambalakode P.O,

    Palakkad – 678 544

2. The Managing Director,

    Sunrise Plywood Division, Plymarc Industies,

    N.H.Bypass Near Oberon Mall,

    Edappally,                                                          -         Opposite parties

Kochi – 682 024

    (Both OPs Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party who is the proprietress of M/s Magic Interio for doing the interior works in his kitchen. As per the quotation issued by the opposite party, work was completed and the complainant paid the entire amount. The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.1,33,300/- for the works. It included one wardrobe of 46 sq.ft costing Rs.36,800/- another wardrobe of 48 sq.ft costing Rs.38,400/- TV unit, 49 sq.ft of Rs.9180/- and Photo Frame, 9 sq.ft costing Rs.9550/-.

            In addition to these, the 1^st opposite party had also done kitchen berth works and had paid a total consideration of  Rs.1,78,780/- for the entire works. The wardrobe and other works were completed by the 1^st opposite party using Sunrise plywood which is manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. when enquired about the quality of the plywood, the 1^st opposite party had assured 10 years guarantee for the product. But within one year, the wardrobes, TV Unit, stand and other things got damaged and affected with termites. The complainant demanded the 1^st opposite party to replace the damaged items with new one; but the opposite party did not do anything. To the notice issued, the opposite party sent reply stating untrue facts.  2^nd opposite party’s manager also visited the complainant’s house and convinced about the damages to the interior works.

            The 1^st opposite party had used low quality plywoods manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for the interior works in the complainant’s house and this resulted in damages to the product within a short span of time. Hence both the opposite parties are responsible for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and are liable to compensate the complainant for that.

            Hence he approached this Commission for directing the opposite party

1. To pay Rs. 1,33,130/- for the damages suffered by the complainant due to the defects in the interior works.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation. He claims a total of Rs. 1,68,130/- together with 12% interest.

2.  Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to both opposite parties. 1^st Opposite party’s notice returned stating ‘ unclaimed ’ and they were set                   ex-parte. Even though vakalath was filed on behalf of the 2^nd OP, they did not file version and were set ex-parte.    

3.  In the absence of version of the opposite parties, the complainant has only to prove a prima facie case.

              Complainant’s greivence is that he approached the 1^st opposite party for doing interior works in his house. As per the quotation, 1^st OP, who is the propritress of M/s Magic Interio, agreed to do the works of 2 ward robes, TV unit, Corner TV stand and Photo Frame. Inaddition to this, she undertook kitchen berth work also. The complainant paid a total consideration of Rs.1,78,780/- for the entire work. The 1^st opposite party completed the work as per the quotation. 1^st opposite party used the plywood manufactured by the 2^nd OP and assured that it has 10 year guarantee. But the interior works got damaged within one year of its construction. The opposite parties did not respond to the complainant’s demand to replace the damaged items.

4.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 – A3 marked from his side. Complainant filed an application IA 258/22 for the appointment of an expert and Advocate Commissioner to inspect the interior works done by the 1^st opposite party. It  was allowed and the report filed by the Commissioners were marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a). Along with the report 5 covers (containing 33 photos) of the damaged items is also filed.

5.   Ext.A1 is the print out of the E-mail, ‘Quotation from Magic interio’ to the complainant. The quotation contains particulars of 9 items and its cost. As per that, the total amount of construction is Rs.1,78,780/-. It further shows

      Advance Payment     -        Rs. 89,000/- and

      Balance amount       -        Rs. 89,780/-

      Ext.A2 is the e-mail addressed by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party. In this he has complained about the quality of the plywood by brand name ‘SUNRISE’ which was used by the contractor. He stated that the product was of poor quality and his 2 wardrobes were completely damaged and affected with termite within a short span of 12 months. He had attached some photographs of the damaged items.

6.   Ext.A3 is the print out of the e-mail sent by the  2^nd OP to the complainant. In this they have stated that the contractor had given false information regarding guarantee and other features of the product            ‘ Sunrise MR ’. They contented that “ Sunrise MR is our budget grade product which we recommended for commercial fit outs and packing purposes. Plymarc has three variants of marine plywood which we recommend and give guarantee for all household furniture and interior fit out applications.”

          From this, it is clear that the 1^st opposite party had used a product which is not suitable for making interior fit outs.

7.   Ext.C1(a) report by the Civil expert, reveals the materials used in the construction of the interior works is of poor quality and the entire work has to be demolished and reconstructed. The expert has detailed the damages caused to the interior works. As per the report.

1. വാർഡ്രോബ് – 1 (46 sq.ft) -         പൂർണ്ണമായും ഉപയോഗ ശൂന്യമായ വിധത്തിൽ 

                                                        കേടുവന്നിരക്കുന്നു.

2. വാർഡ്രോബ് – 2 (48 sq.ft) -         പൂർണ്ണമായും ഉപയോഗ ശൂന്യമായ വിധത്തിൽ 

                                                        കേടുവന്നിരക്കുന്നു.

3. ടെലിവിഷൻ യൂണിറ്റ് (49 sq.ft) -   കേടുപാടുകൾസംഭവിച്ചുതുടങ്ങി. മാറ്റേണ്ടതാണ്.

4. ഫോട്ടോ ഫ്രയിം (42 sq.ft)      -      നിറം മങ്ങിയും കേടുപാടുകൾ സംഭവിച്ചും കണ്ടു. 

                                                        മാറ്റേണ്ടതാണ്.

5. കോർണർ ടി.വി. യൂണിറ്റ് (9 sq.ft) – കേടുപാടുകൾ ഉണ്ടായിതുടങ്ങി. അധികകാലം 

                                                         നിലനിൽക്കില്ല. മാറ്റേണ്ടതാണ്.        

     The photographs produced along with report also clearly shows the damages.

He assessed the total cost of reconstruction as Rs. 1,80,880/-

8.   Thus complainant had succeeded in proving his case. The 1^st OP is responsible for using low quality plywood for construction of interior works in the complainant’s house and they are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant had suffered financial loss and mental agony due to the acts of the 1^st opposite party.

9.   From the pleadings it appears that, there was no direct contract between the complainant and 2^nd OP. The plywood which is used for construction is purchased by the 1^st opposite party and its quality is assured by the 1^st opposite party. So the 1^st OP alone is responsible. Further as per Ext.A3, the 2^nd OP informed the complainant that the material used is not fit for interior fit outs. It is used for commercial fit outs and packing purposes.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed.

1. The 1^st OP is directed to pay Rs.1,80,880/- being the total cost of re-construction of the interior works as assessed by the Expert Commissioner together with 12% interest from 9/12/2020 till realization.
2. The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as cost of this litigation.

       The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

       Pronounced in open court on this the 11^th day of August, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                                President                                              

                                                             Sd/-

                  Vidya.A

                                Member   

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1  : The print out of the E-mail ‘Quotation from Magic interio’ to the 

                 complainant.

Ext. A2  : The e-mail addressed by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ext. A3  : The print out of the e-mail sent by the  2^nd OP to the complainant.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Ext.C1   : Advocate Commission Report

Ext.C1(a): Civil Expert Commission Report.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost: 10,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.