BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI        :  MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 113/2015

V/s

ORDER

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.17,17,673/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from September 2013, Rs.2,35,000/- towards repainting of the affected area and re-polishing of the wooden floors, cost towards the hiring the rental premise for period of 6-7 months which amounts to Rs.3,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.1,25,000/- towards legal costs.

2.      The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a house at Groove-1, Good Earth Orchard, Doddabelle Road, Kengeri, Bangalore 560 060 in the year 2012.  Thereafter, he approached the Opposite Party for wooden furnishing and interior work.  On 04.03.2013 the Opposite Party provided an estimate describing type and quality of materials to be used, quantity, rate etc.  As complainant needed plywood used should be marine board and borer/insect proof for which the Opposite Party quoted the rates accordingly given for an estimate of Rs.15,82,983/- and the same was approved by the complainant and the work was entrusted to the Opposite Party.  After that the complainant’s wife moved to Dubai on 10.03.2013 by giving key of the house to the Opposite Party with full faith as they undertook the entire responsibility of the interiors and returned on 29.05.2013.  The Opposite Party took 6-7 months for completing the work and received the full amount for the same.  In January 2015, the complainant shocked and surprised and noticed that in the most of the furnishing done by the Opposite Party that powders were dropping out of the wooden shelves and it confirmed that all the wooden furnishings were attacked by the borers.  The complainant informed the same to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party sent a carpenter who stated that the wood used were marine plywood, but, as per the agreement, the Opposite Party was to use marine plywood in bathrooms/kitchen and borer proof commercial ply on other areas.

3.      On 30.01.2015 the Opposite Party visited the complainant’s premises with the same carpenter along with local person who was pesticide person, who was carrying the chemical pellets which has to be placed inside the furniture and seal it which will form into gas once it comes in contact with air which the complainant was suspicious as a dangerous chemical and objected its use and wanted to know the name and details of the chemical.  The Opposite Party assured 10 year guarantee on the furniture from the borer attacks after using said chemical.  The complainant refused to apply the chemical as it is dangerous for human life.  It is further alleged that as per the contract the Opposite Party should use only borer proof commercial ply for wall units and marine water proof block board and better quality than the borer proof commercial ply.  The complainant alleged that the Opposite Party used sub-standard materials from non-reputed companies which are not borer proof.  The complainant requested the Opposite Party to replace the sub-standard materials as it is having a financial implication on him, but, the Opposite Party refused to do the needful.  Then the complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 11.03.2015 to rectify the mistake, but, the Opposite Party refused to accept the mistake and denied the liability on their part.  Hence, the complaint.

4.      After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that they are the reputed interior designers and providing good qualitative deliveries.  As per the discussion with complainant, the Opposite Party initiated the interior designing work at the complainant’s house i.e. designing and executing electrical and civil works such as part flooring, furniture, plumbing etc. and commenced the work in March 2013.  The Opposite Party further contended that they used superior quality material in accordance with the specifications mentioned in the email dt.04.03.2013.  It is pertinent to note that since the complainant is based out of Dubai, the Opposite Party was requested to accommodate several requests which were not part of her scope of work such as small tasks of polishing etc.  Though the Opposite Party was inconvenienced to accommodate such requests, the Opposite Party had gone out of her way to accommodate such requests of the complainant some of which were unreasonable as a goodwill gesture and completed the interior designing work to the satisfaction of the complainant in August 2013.  In September 2013 the complainant has made the full payment for the same.

5.      It is further contended that on 29.01.2015 the complainant complained of the borer attack to the certain wood at his house. The Opposite Party inspected and informed that the infestation of wood happens gradually and periodically.  Infestation of wood cannot take place at once. The Opposite Party researched on the treatment and found it to be effective, but, unsafe to humans and immediately communicated to the complainant.  The Opposite Party arranged pest controller Dr. Arun who inspected and said that he would use a chemical name imidacloprid, a WHO approved chemical which is both human safe, pet safe and an odorless chemical in order to cure the infestation.  The Opposite Party contended that they have used superior quality block wood procured from the distributor and would give lifetime warranty on the woods from infestation.  The Opposite Party was ready to do the treatment of wood, but, the complainant is not ready for the same and writing unnecessary mails sending false notice and filing a false complaint.  Moreover lack of care adopted and negligent attitude of the complainant at the first instance resulted in the other woods being affected by the borer and the infestation of the wood cannot be attributed to the Opposite Party.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.      The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-19.  The Opposite Party also filed affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.R-1 to R-9.  Complainant filed written arguments.  Heard the arguments.

7.      On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(i)       Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

            (ii)      What order?

          8.      The findings to the above points are;

                   (i)       Partly affirmative

                   (ii)      As per final order

REASONS

9.      On going through the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents, we noticed that the Opposite Party had undertaken to complete the interior design entrusted by the complainant.  Accordingly, the said work was undertaken and completed in the year 2013.  The complainant had paid full amount towards the designing and interior works.  After completion, the complainant took a possession and noticed after a lapse of 6-7 months that most of the furnishing were attacked by borers.  Immediately he informed the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party said that the borers were attacked due to non-maintenance and it has to be treated by chemicals, but, the complainant failed to maintain the plywood sheets and other materials and escaped the liability saying that they are not responsible for attack of borers.  The photos produced at Annexure C-16 to C-34 clearly goes to show that the borers were attacked to the plywood sheets which were fixed to the wardrobes and other compartments of the wall.   We are of the opinion that it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to purchase branded new good quality for the purpose of furnishing.  The Opposite Party has undertaken to complete the interior work by providing good quality of the materials whereas the photos disclose that the materials used are old materials which attacked by borers.  Whereas the Opposite Party has taken a defence that they have entrusted the work to some other carpenter who has purchased the materials from other sellers, but, the complainant had not made the seller as a party before this Commission in order to find out the manufacturing defect, hence, submits that they are not liable to pay any compensation.  The Opposite Party also produced photos to show that he has completed a work as entrusted and they have utilized good quality materials of plywood sheets for the purpose of preparation of the cupboards and wardrobes.  Ofcourse we agree that the Opposite Party had furnished the work, but, some parts of the wardrobes were attacked by borers which clearly goes to show that the materials used by the said Opposite Party are of poor quality.  The expert opinion not at all required for the purpose of finding out the reason for attack of borers to the plywood sheets.  The borers will not attack on the plywood sheets inside the house as because it is a brand new house, the chances of attacking borer does not arise.  The Opposite Party failed to supervise the carpentry work while under process and he failed to manage to verify whether the products received are of poor quality or not.  We are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has purchased the plywood sheets which were already attacked by the borers for furnishing.  Hence, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party in providing poor quality of plywood sheets for the purpose of furnishing.  The complainant in its affidavit sworn that she requires nearly Rs.17 lakhs for the purpose of replacement, but, had not produced any materials to show that she requires such a huge amount for replacement of the plywood sheets.  Hence, the entire claim of the complainant is not justified.  Therefore, it is just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards unfair trade practice.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. 

The Opposite Parties are granted 30 days time from this date to comply the Order. In default, the said amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.

Forward free copies to both the parties. 

                  Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*