IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016. Filed on 31.01.2012 Present 1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President 2. Sri. Antony Xavier,(Member) 3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) in C.C.No.29/2012 between Complainant:- Opposite Parties:- Mrs. Kunjannamma Varghese M. A. Varghese Polachirackal Puthen Purackal, Mary Madha Industries Building, Kadaikad Village, Kollakadavu – 690509, Pulimchodu, Alappuzha District. Mampra P. O. – 689508 ( By Adv. Devi R. Raj) Alappuzha District. ( By Adv. P. S. Anaghan) O R D E R SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER) The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is an octogenarian lady. She in 2011 with a view to innovate her old residence placed order for six door frames and five doors with the opposite party. The opposite party agreed to the same and offered to make the front door of the lot in Teak wood. On expiry of one month, the opposite party turned up in the complainant premise with the door frames and the front door. At the first blush itself, the doors and frames appeared poor quality both in terms of materials used and in the workmanship with which they were made. The complainant had employed masons for the purpose of for the purpose of setting up the walls that would accommodate new door frames. The opposite party caused his personnel replace the front door with the one he brought up as per the complainant’s order. The hinges were left fastened improperly, and the door was virtually drooping down from the frame leaving extensive fissure between the door and the frame. What is more, the lock of the door could never be operated appropriately due to the poor craftsmanship with which the same was fitted. Any attempt on the door would render the same rattle, and more significantly the said door never served the purpose, for the same never ensured safety or security. The complainant had to employ some other carpenters to tie the door somehow up to the frame. Strangely still the front door wore a disgraceful appearance which never guaranteed protection or honor to the complainant’s residence. The condition of the door frames the opposite party brought were still worse. The woods used seemed drenched and virtually water was streaming down from the frames. The complainant found it difficult to accept the said frames, and the opposite party took the doorframes back. The opposite party had got hold of Rs.21,500/- (twenty one thousand one hundred) from the complainant towards part payment of the total price the opposite party demanded. The opposite party fleeced huge amount from the complainant on dishonestly delivering materials of inferior quality and flawed workmanship. The complainant sustained mental and monetary woes. The complainant on got aggrieved on this, approached this Forum for compensation and relief. 2. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The crux of the contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party supplied materials in line with what was complainant ordered. The doors and frames were properly made up, and the front door was fixed in the exact manner as it should have been. The complainant willfully refused some of the materials the opposite party put up, and put forth allegations as tom the inferior quality of the front door solely with a view to evade effecting balance payment to the opposite party. The materials rejected by the complainant cannot be change around for any other party’s purpose nor could it be sold out. It is the complainant who caused huge loss to the opposite party leaving him unpaid. The complaint has filed without any basis, and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party. 3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the deposition of the complainant herself as PW1, and PW2 and PW3 were examined. Documents were marked as Exbt A1 and Exbt A2. On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party was examined as RW1, and no documents marked. Taking into account the contentions of both the parties, the questions that come up in our mind for consideration are:- (a)Whether the complainant purchased the wooden materials from the opposite party? (b)Whether the materials so purchased were defective? (c)Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? Concededly the complainant ordered some wooden materials, and virtually purchased a front door from the opposite party. We cautiously went through the complaint, version, affidavits, depositions and the various documents brought before us on record by the parties. The complainant cases it appears is that the complainant ordered six door frames and five doors from the opposite party. The factum of dealing between the complainant and the opposite party is neither denied nor disputed save its consequence. The opposite party on expiry of one month after the said order on 18th July 2011 brought the door frames and the front door to the complainant premise. The complainant on the very sight of the said materials felt dissatisfied. The quality of the wood with which the materials were made up looked inferior. The workmanship also was visibly substandard. The entire wood seemed sodden, and water was trickling out from them. However the front door was allowed to be fixed, and the same appeared not only disgraceful but also never served even its prime purpose of providing protection to the inmates of the dwelling. The hinges failed to properly fasten the door to the frame, and the door often caused rattling sound. The complainant didn’t accept the other door frames owing to their pitiable quality. However, the opposite party had obtained Rs.21,500/- (twenty one thousand five hundred) as part payment towards the total cost of the materials from the complainant. Bearing all these aspects lively in mind we made a close scrutiny of the version, commission reports, affidavits, deposition, and all other materials that were brought on record by the parties. We anxiously went through Exbts A1 to A2 documents. We cautiously perused the Exbt C2 & C2 commission Reports. On a bare perusal of the commission reports and the Pw’s assertive testimonies, it is emphatically unfolded that the Front door and the wooden frames were of indescribable poor quality and inappropriate for their very purpose. In the Commission Reports, it is categorically stated that the front door was absolutely incompatible with the frame and the same was sagging. What is more, the lock of the, door was out of order which defied safety and security. What is more, the opposite parties have not adopted any meaningful steps either to discredit the commission reports or even to challenge the same. It is pertinent to notice that no material is forthcoming from the part of the opposite party has supplied perfect materials to the complainant. The opposite party has not made it a point to produce any document either to prove the opposite party’s case to disprove the complainant case. Thus, in the context of the complainant’s assertive case backed up by the convincing ExbtA1 to A2 documents, Commission reports and testimonies, and more so in the absence of any inspiring materials on the part of the opposite party to bring home his allegation, we are persuaded to hold that the complainant case is more trustworthy. Needless to say, the opposite party’s contention to the effect that the complainant’s allegation as the inferior quality of the materials is to evade payment of balance amount does not merit acceptance. The complainant is entitled to relief. In the wake of what have been elaborated supra, the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.21,500/- (twenty one thousand five hundred) to the complainant. After the complainant handling back the old door to the opposite party, the opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (one thousand only) as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this forum within 30 days of receipt of this order. In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016. Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) APPENDIX:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Kunjannamma Varghese (Witness) PW2 - Abraham Varghese (Witness) PW3 - Chandra Das (Witness) Ext.A1 - Disbursed detail statement prepared by opposite party Ext.A2 - Photos (7 Nos.) Ext.C1 & C2 - Commission Report & Mahazor Evidence of the opposite parties:- RW1 - Varghese M.A. (Witness) //True copy// By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/SF Typed by: P/- Compd. By: | 
