DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 11/12/2018
CC/168/2018
P.Ramakumaran,
Puthanvariyam,
Thrikaderi,
Palakkad Dist – 679 502 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
1.K.Sabarinathan,
M/s.Crystal Solar World,
Opp.Rosi School (Palace)
Chathapuram, Palakkad – 678 003
(By Adv.Ullas Sudakaran)
2.M/s.Franke Faber India P Ltd.
1086/1/2, Nagar Road, Sanaswadi,
Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412 208 - Opposite Parties
(By Authorised representative)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- The Complainant entered into a contract with the first opposite party to refurbish his kitchen using modular kitchen and allied facilities manufactured by the second opposite party. Even though the complainant paid Rs.1,85,000/- out of Rs.2 lakhs towards the cost and labour, opposite party (1) abruptly stopped working as the complainant objected when the OP1 failed to fix pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes. Inspite of repeated requests, the OP1 failed to carry out the balance work. This abrupt stoppage has led to gross mental pain and difficulties to the complainant and his family members. This complaint is filed raising a total claim of Rs.17 lakhs.
- Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions. The first opposite party denied complaint pleadings stating that he had always been ready and willing to carry out the works in the kitchen of the complainant. He admitted to availing Rs.1,85,000/- towards cost and labour of the contract works agreed upon. It was found that the construction of the complainant’s kitchen required alteration in the materials supplied by the opposite party. Furthermore, the complainant also sought for changes in space for gas cylinder. Due to some misunderstanding on the part of the complainant subsequent to initiation of the work, the complainant prevented the workers engaged by the first opposite party from carrying out the works. Even though the 1st opposite party tried to alleviate the complainant’s misunderstanding, the complainant was not amenable to any change and the work had to be stopped. The first opposite party expressed his willingness to continue with the work provided the complainant co-operate and pay the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- to the first opposite party.
- The second opposite party filed version holding that they are totally unaware of the disputes between the first opposite party and the complainant.
- The following issues arise for consideration ;
- Whether, the 2nd opposite party is necessary to these proceedings ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in delaying the refurbishing works in the complainant’s kitchen.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
- Reliefs, as to Compensation and Cost ?
5. Both the complainant and opposite party 1 filed proof affidavits. Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1series were marked. The Expert Commission filed his report which was marked as Ext.C1 and the 4 photographs were marked as Ext.C1(a) to C1(d).
Issue no. I
6. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of refurbishing materials. On going through the pleadings in the complaint it is seen that the complainant is not at all aggrieved by the quality of the products supplied by the first opposite party. His only grievance is with regard to the refurbishing works carried out at the instance of the first opposite party.
Hence, the 2nd opposite party is not a necessary party to the dispute.
Issue No.2
7. The complainant’s grievance is with regard to the non completion of works agreed upon to be completed by the first opposite party when confronted for not fixing pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes as stated in page (2) of memorandum of complaint.
Case of the first opposite party is that the complainant did not permit the staff of the first opposite party to continue with the work based on some misunderstanding. He has also expressed his willingness to carry out the work provided the complainant pays him the balance of Rs.15,000/- payable.
So, from a reading of the pleadings two questions arise for consideration
- Whether the OP1 had agreed to fixing pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes ?; and
- Whether he had refused to do so ?
1) Whether the OP1 had agreed to fixing pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes
8. The first opposite party had under taken to carry out the work after having satisfied of taking into consideration the nature and lie of the kitchen of the complainant. No prudent man would undertake any works without understanding the grounds upon which he is to work lest he stands to sustain losses. It is only reasonable and logical to presume that the first opposite party entered into an agreement (Ext.A1 herein) after coming to a studied conclusion as to the ground realities, nature of works, materials required thereof, and the expenses included therein.
In page 3 of Ext.A1, the first condition is that the estimate includes laminated shutters, BWP ply pre-laminated carcass; normal handle, auto hinges. It is clear from a reading of Exts.A1 that pre-laminated carcass forms an integral part of the work to be carried out.
- Whether he had refused to carry out works using pre-laminated carcass?
9. In order to ascertain the ground realities, this commission appointed Mr.A.M.Sheriff as the Expert Commissioner. His report is marked as Ext.C1. His opinions are seen in page 4 of Ext.C1. He refers to complainant as first party and OP1 as second party. His opinions are as follows:
1. The inside measurements of the originally constructed kitchen platform cannot accommodate the standard size item, as brought by the second party.
2. With some minor modifications the works can be completed.
3.But the first opposite party is not prepared to compromise these difference.
4. The first party pointed out the side panels inside to be fixed accurately with the original specification and is not prepared to compromise any deviation.
(since opinion 5 to 7 are not relevant to adjudicate on the dispute, they are not stated here)
Even though crux of the case being the fixing of pre-laminated marine carcass on all kitchen boxes, the Expert Commissioner has failed to answer this question. That being so, no reliance can be placed on the Expert Commissioner’s Exhibit C1 report and Annexure photographs.
10. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has clearly stated his grievance as non fixing of pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes as the crux of his grievance.
In Ext.A2 reply, the first opposite party does not make any reference so as to alleviate the grievance of the complainant by stating that he has fixed pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes. Similarly, while filing the version also the first opposite party drives clear from stating that he has fixed pre-laminated marine ply carcass in all kitchen boxes. When the complainant express a clearly specified grievance, it is incumbent upon the opposite party to specifically answer the said allegation. An evasive, unclear reply can only mean that the opposite party does not wish to answer the clear allegation raised against him.
Thus it is clear from the conduct of the first opposite party that he has failed to carry out the works in accordance with the terms, conditions and covenants contained in Ext.A1 agreement.
We, therefore, hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
Issue No.3
12. The complainant has sought for an aggregate compensation of Rs.17 lakhs. We believe that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this amount is exorbitant. The complainant is not entitled to the relief as sought for.
Issue No.4
13. As already discussed supra, the opposite party No.1 has grossly violated the terms and conditions of the Ext.A1 agreement. At this stage, that is after nearly 4 years, it would be impractical to direct completion of works by the first opposite party in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Ext.A1 agreement. Further we are also not updated on the present status of the complainant’s kitchen. Hence, we order as herein below:
1. The complaint is entitled to have the Rs.1,85,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty five
thousand only) returned.
2.The complainant is entitled to an interest of 9% on the aforesaid amount from the
date of payment till date of receipt.
3. The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand
only)
4.If this order is not complied within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order, the
complainant will be entitled to a solatium of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof
from the date of this order till the date final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of June, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Original of the work agreement
Ext.A2 – Communication dated 29/10/2018 from OP1 to complainant
Ext.A3 – Copy of communication dated 5/11/2018 from complainant to opposite party
Ext.A4 – Copy of communication dated 11/11/2018 from complainant to opposite party 1
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 series – Photocopy of whatsapp messages between the complainant and 1st OP.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Court Exhibits
Ext.C1 – Commission report
Exts.C1(a) to C1(d) – Photographs submitted by the expert commissioner.
Cost : Rs.20,000/-allowed.
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.
