Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Appellants in both these appeals are remaining absent in spite of notice published on the Notice Board of this Commission, the Bar and on the Internet as well as by way of abundant precaution, intimation sent by post on 21/01/2012. Respondent/org. complainant in both these appeals represented by Advocate Mr.Nikhil Jayakar and since these are old appeals of 2004, we heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Jayakar. 2. These two appeals take an exception to an order dated 20/02/2004 passed in consumer complaint No.596/1996, Dr.Sudhir Mohan Adarkar & Anr. V/s. M/s.Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. & Anr., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban (‘the Forum’ in short). 3. The consumer complaint is in respect of defective goods i.e. “Dura Tuff” material of external use, which was used for doing interior furniture and other interior work by the complainants. Within just one month from making such interior work and furniture the Dura Tuff sheets used started loosing their shape as well as other interior work carried out became unusable and entire work get spoiled and therefore, alleging defects in the goods, consumer complaint is filed against the manufacturer, namely, opponent No.1-M/s.Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘Manufacturer’) and against opponent No.2-M/s.Amar Plywood, the dealer through whom the material was purchased. The manufacturer and dealer blamed for the result mentioned above to the poor craftsmanship and not following the guidelines for its use. Upholding the contention of the complainants, the Forum directed the opponents to pay compensation of `1,82,000/- i.e. costs incurred for doing said work and further directed to pay additional compensation of `10,000/- and costs of `1,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby the manufacturer preferred an appeal No.2365/2004 while the dealer preferred an appeal No.2290/2004. Since both these appeals are involved common question and facts, these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 4. In the instant case, purchase and use of Dura Tuff external material for the interior work including furniture by the complainants is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that within a month thereafter, the entire furniture got spoiled as stated earlier. It is also not disputed that on complaint made by the complainants to the dealer and manufacturer, their officials including one Architect-Mr.Subhash Abhyankar also visited and inspected the interior work including furniture. Report of the Architect-Mr.Subhash Abhayankar based upon his visit on 07/08/1997 is filed by the manufacturer itself and to which a reference is made even by the complainants. Therefore, in the instant case, when the manufacturer and the dealer alleged that due to poor craftsmanship and not following the instructions to use said material, the particular result occurred, then it being a case of res-ipsa-loquitur, per se, it is for the manufacturer and dealer to prove otherwise. This is particularly so in the background of rebuttal statement of the complainants that the entire interior works was carried out under the supervision of their Architect, who is a qualified person. In the instant case, the manufacturer or the dealer who are appellants failed to discharge their such burden, as rightly observed by the Forum. 5. Referring to the report of Architect-Mr.Subhash Abhayankar dated 07/08/1997, supra, he assigned possible reason for the unfortunate result to moisturous condition and settlement of walls/posts/floor of complainants’ flat due to aging of building. He clearly observed that he could not inspect the workmanship, conditions of Dura Tuff and whether all the guidelines laid down by the manufacturer were followed. Taking into consideration these observations and in absence of any other material, certainly, it cannot be said that the complainants did not follow the user’s instructions of the manufacturer while using the material Dura Tuff. Considering the fact that within a month from using the material, it gave away the expected life and the entire work of the furniture and interior gets spoiled, speaks for the inferior quality of said material. 6. For the reasons stated above, we find that both the appeals are devoid of any substance. Hence, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Both these appeals bearing Nos.2290/2004 & 2365/2004 are dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 29th March 2012. |
