Orissa

Kalahandi

CC/44/2021

Santosh Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D , M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Kumar Panda & Associate

22 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KALAHANDI
NEAR TV CENTRE PADA, BHAWANIPATANA, KALAHANDI
ODISHA, PIN 766001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/44/2021
( Date of Filing : 15 Sep 2021 )
 
1. Santosh Kumar Patra
S/O-Late Lacchu Patra ,Ramnagar Pada At/Po/Ps-Bhawanipatna,
Kalahandi
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M.D , M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED.
Corporate Office , Madgul Lounge, 5th and 6th Floor,23 Chetla Centeral Road,KOLKATA, Pin-700027
2. The Business Director,M/S Greenply Industries, Odisha
110 Venus Royal Hyde,first floor, Block-A Rasulgarh,Bhubaneswar,-751010
3. The Proprietor, M/S Jain Plywood
Near Puspa Lodge ,Mahavirpada,Bhawanipatna Dist-Kalahandi,Odisha.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Aswini Kumar Patra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sudhir Kumar Panda & Associate, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Rajkishore Sahoo & Associate, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
 Rajkishore Sahoo & Associate, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
 Shri Abhijit Mishra & Associate , Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 22 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Sri A.K.Patra, President

  1. The captioned consumer complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging unfair trade practice & deficient service on the part of the Ops for selling of bad quality of product/Green Ply falsely assuring its durability, good quality & termite free caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant.
  2. The Complainant seeks order with the following reliefs:-(i) to direct the Ops to refund total amount of Rs.6,30,578/-  towards  cost of ply wood purchased by the complainant .(ii) to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs,.5,00,000/- towards the charges & cost borne by the complainant for payment of carpenters and other expenses, (iii) to direct the Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony caused by the Ops to the complainant, (iv) to direct the  Ops to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
  3. (i)The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant has purchased Ply wood of Green Ply Company from Opp.Party No.3 for interior design of  his newly constructed  house   on different dates i.e worth of Rs.3,71,459/- on dt.5.10.2016, of  Rs.1,18,641/- on dt.25.10.2016 & worth Rs.1,40,478/- on dt. 20.01.2017. The total amount paid to OP No.3(three) is Rs. 6,30,578/- vide Invoice No.2508 ,2602 and 2709 respectively. The complainant also purchased Fore mica, gum, iron screw, paints and other fittings worth  Rs.5,00,000/-  and employed well expertise  carpenters   for interior design of ply wood  and paid Rs.2,00,000/-  towards their remuneration in making cup boards and different interior designs for the house.
  1. The subject goods/ Green ply purchased from OP 3 is the brand name of Op 1 & 2 and the Op 3 assured its quality of termite free and durability of life long and that, the complainant believed its market reputation of Green Ply Wood purchased the particular brand for his house without apprehension of the termite’s attacks.
  2. It is further  alleged by the complainant that, in march  2020 the complainant noticed that, termites have been eaten away the ply  which were fitted in different design in his house and found that, almost all ply pieces  have been damaged extensively by the termites silently. The complainant immediately brought this fact to the knowledge of the OP No.3 and the OP 3 expressed his helplessness but agreed to replace the damaged ply wood and to supply new ply wood to the complainant with consultation of the OP 1 & 2. The complainant through Op 3 drew the attention of OP 1 & 2 for replacement of the damaged ply and to supply the new ply or to pay the compensation of the loss sustained by him. The OP 3 assured the complainant to wait for needful service from the side of OP 1 & 2 but  after lapse of long time  the Ops neither  render any service to the complainant nor paid any compensation for loss suffered by the complainant. Hence this complaint.
  3. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the original Tax/Retail invoice/ Bills bearing No. 2602, dt.25.11.2016, bearing No. 2508  dt.05.10.16, bearing No.2709 dt.20.01.17  issued by the OP 3(three).The averment of the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
  1. On being notice, the Op 1 & 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel Shri R.K.Sahoo and filed their written version stating therein that, the disputed goods / Green Ply Wood which is stated to have be purchased by the complainant from the OP 3(three) are not the products of Green ply Industries Ltd. The complainant has filed three false & fabricated Tax/Retail Invoice of Jain Ply Wood /OP3 to extract illegal money from the Opposite Parties.  The Ops have never issued any letter of warranty on the disputed “ply woods” which the complainant has purchased as because the disputed “ply woods” are not the products of Green ply Industries Ltd., so also the complainant has not filed a single scrap of paper relating to warranty given by “Green ply”  except the three fabricated manufactured Retail Invoices. The complainant has not purchased the plywood from    OP 3(three) on different dates as stated. A sun of Rs.3,71,459/- dt.15.10.2016, sum of Rs.1,18,641/- dt.25.11.2016 , a sum of Rs.1,40,478/- dt.20.01.2017 has not paid  by the complainant to the Op 3 .The  Invoices bearing No.2508, 2602 & 2709 were not issued by the Op No.3 in favour of the complainant. The three alleged tax/Retail Invoices filed by the complainant are forged, fraudulent, fabricated and manufactured by the complainant and these invoices were not issued by the Op No.3. Those invoices bearing No.2508 dt.5.10.2016, 2602 dt.25.11.2016 & 2709 dt.20.1.2017 does not tally or match with the same numbered carbon copies of the tax/retail invoice books retained by the Opposite Party No.3. The description of ply, quantity and date & name of purchasers shown on the said alleged invoices filed by the complainant does not match or tally with the description of ply quantity and rate & name of purchasers written in the carbon copy bearing the same number of invoices in the tax/retail invoice books. The alleged affected & damaged Ply Woods are not the products of these opposite parties and those are products of other company and the alleged ply woods do not come under the warranty ply woods of these opposite parties. It is further submitted by the OP 1 & 2 that, it is true to say that, the market has a brand name of OP 1 & 2 . OP 1 is the manufacturer of green ply and OP 1 assures its quality on certain products out of total of their products, which are termite free and durability after its use in any place and specifically in houses and shops. The complainant has never intimated about the facts in writing to the Ops prior to filing of this complaint. The OP 1& 2 have no knowledge about the alleged facts stated in the complaint petition so also nobody has discussed about the fact with the OPs. It is further submitted that, the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops in respect of the alleged damaged ply woods which are not the products of the Ops Company as because the complainant has produced three fabricated & fraudulent tax/retail invoices which does not match with the carbon copies of the same invoices numbers in the tax/retail invoices book retained by the OP 3. Hence, question does not arise for replacement or compensation so also the alleged damaged ply woods do not cover the company’s warranty. The Ops are not deficient in rendering service to the customers and indulging unfair trade practice. It is further submitted by the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 that, the complainant has not given sufficient proof that, the alleged ply woods are the products of green ply industries ltd. The complainant has not intimated the Ops by any letter so that, the technical experts of the company could have examined the alleged damaged ply wood in their laboratory to know it’s quality and whether it belongs to their company. So also the complainant has not filed any report of experts about the alleged damage of ply woods. The complainant has not sent the sample of the damaged/affected portion of the ply wood for chemical examination so that, the experts can give their reports and if the report comes that, the product belongs to “Green ply industries” then the company is liable to the extent of the replacement of the material actually damaged but the complainant has not filed any such expert report, letter of warranty issued by the Green Ply Industries Ltd. It is further stated that ,  the Ops are not liable to pay any compensation  to the complainant rather complainant is liable to pay damages for giving false allegations against the Ops and for affecting the goodwill of the company. The complainant’s prayer being illegal are liable to be rejected and as there is no deficiency in service & unfair trade practice , there is no merit in the case as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
  2. The OP 3 (three) appeared himself and filed his  written version stating there in that, the complainant has directly talked with the Manager, “Green ply Industries Ltd” about the quality, terms and condition, guarantee and warranties of the said ply and after full satisfaction the complainant ordered the same product/ply and purchased from him/the Op 3 .The OP 3 has admitted the facts that, he has supplied the alleged “Ply Wood” to the complainant vide Invoice No.2508 ,2602 & 2701(as relied by the complainant). It is further stated that, the OP 3 (three) is just a reseller of the “green ply” and all the guarantee & warranty were given by the Green ply Industries Ltd to the complainant.
  3. ) Later on the OP 3(three) engaged his Ld. counsel Sri  Abhijit Mishra and filed an  additional written version stating there in that , he has  filed its written version earlier without verification and comparing the Tax/Retail Invoices filed by the complainant  with the Carbon Copies of  Tax/retail Invoice books which the OP 3(three)  kept in its Shop for day to day business transactions and that, after  verification of the receipts filed by the complainant, the OP 3(three) found that, the goods/articles/ply woods shown to be sold in the said receipts do not tally or match with  the carbon copy of Tax/Retail Invoice Books. The OP 3 denied sale of subject articles/products/ply woods shown in the Tax/Retail Invoices filed by the complainant.
  4. The additional written version of the OP 3(three) filed at a belated stage without assigning any  good cause for such delay has not accepted in view of the order dt. 04.03.2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vrs Hilly Multi Purpose Cold Stored Ltd. However, three numbers of Carbon Copies of Tax/retail Invoice books placed on the record by the OP 3 (three) is taken in to consideration for perusal and proper decision of the disputed in involved this case. 
  5. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence to substantiate their contentions is taken in to record.
  6. Heard. Peruse the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of rival parties and gone through the notes of argument & judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties present.
  7. The Op 1 & 2 submitted that,  complainant has not intimated the Ops by any letter so that, the technical experts of the company could have examined the alleged damaged ply wood in their laboratory to know it’s quality and whether it belongs to their company. So also the complainant has not filed any report of experts about the alleged damage of ply woods. However , this Commission has seen  that, neither the Op 1& 2 nor the Op 3 have taken any pain or have prayed to sent the sample of the alleged good / ply wood for chemical examination to ascertain the facts that:- whether alleged  product belongs to “Green ply industries” and whether it is of low quality got damaged being eaten by termites?
  1. Here, the allegation of the complainant is that, the Ops have falsely assured good quality of the product (Green ply) & is of termite free and further assured its durability after its use in any place and specifically in houses & shops, the complainant believed its market reputation of Green Ply Wood purchased the particular brand for his house without apprehension of the termite’s attacks.
  1. This commission found that, the alleged goods/Green ply wood already fitted in the residence of the complainant is   not amenable to produced before the commission for inspection and not capable of sending to appropriate laboratory to make an analyses /test to finding out whether said goods is of Green Ply being manufactured by OP 1& 2  sold to the complainant by the Op 3 suffered  from any defects/low quality  and  whether alleged goods/Green ply wood got  damaged being eaten away by termites ?  This Commission has  observed that, it can be assess by any prudent man in naked eyes whether the alleged goods/Green ply wood is eaten away by termites & got it damaged ,as such, this Commission appoint  an advocate Commission to ascertain the truth of the allegation made by the   complainant. The Commission visited the premises of the complainant and submitted his report, copy of which is served to the parties, invites objection and after being heard to  both the parties said report of the advocate Commission is taken in to record for consideration .
  2. The advocate commission has submitted the report with an observation that, the complainant has purchased Green Plywood from OP 3 (three) and used it in his residence but it is immensely damaged by the turmeric and it will continue to damage in normal course with each passing of time which remains un rebutted.
  1. It is seen that, the OP 3 has initially admitted the facts there  in his written version filed  in his own hand, that, he has sold the alleged product/green ply wood to the complainant vide Tax Invoice No.2508,2602 and 2729 as relied by the complainant but later on the OP 3(three) has filed an additional written version denying issuance of such invoice relied by the complainant and subsequently produced three volumes of Invoice Book stated to be retain by the OP 3(three). The additional written version filed beyond the stipulated time as prescribed in C.P.Act 2019 and in view of order dt.4.02.2020 passed by Hon’ble  Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs  Hilli Multi Purpose Cold Storage Ltd. is not accepted by this Commission . However, three numbers of retail invoice book produced by the OP 3(three) is accepted for consideration .On perusal of said retail invoice book it is found that, those invoice bearing No.2508 dt.5.10.2016 , Invoice bearing No.2602 dt.25.11.2016 & Invoice Bearing No.2709 dt.20.01.2017 does not tally or match with the same number carbon copies of the tax retail invoice  books presented by the OP 3(three) . It is further found that, all the entrees of the said three invoice books are of carbon copies except the date written in the top right corner. The date is written in ink and on being asked, neither the OP 3 nor the OP 1 & 2 has explained the fact that, how the date is written in ink though other entries in the said three invoice books are of carbon copy. In such circumstances this Commission is  unable to hold that, said three numbers of invoice books filed by the OP 3 are not  genuine rather this Commission is of  the opinion that, those documents are self serving documents manufactured by the Ops after though only to absolve from their liabilities. It is noticed that, the OP 3 (three) in his written version filed earlier in his own hand written has admitted the fact that, he has supplied the alleged ply wood vide his invoice No.2508,2603 & 2709 as relied by the complainant and on close perusal of the said invoice No.2508, 2603 & 2709 placed on the record by the complainant this Commission has  found that,  the goods sold to the complainant  are  of “Green Ply “ so also the OP 1 & 2 have admitted the facts  they are the manufacturer of Green Ply assured its good quality , termite free and durability on use at any place and specifically in shop .Accordingly, theis Commission here by hold that,  the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and the product sold to the Complainant  by the Op 3(three) is of Green Ply Industries Ltd /OP 1&2 & of low quality.
  2. The submission of the Ops that, complainant has not filed any such expert report, letter of warranty issued by the OPS  is not acceptable. This Commission is unable to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant on affidavit that, the Op 3(three) assured its quality of termite free & durability of life long and that, the complainant believed its market reputation of Green Ply Wood/Product of OP 1&2  purchased the particular brand for his house without apprehension of the termite’s attacks rather this Commission is  of the opinion that ,the  Ops, only  to promote the sale give false assurance of good quality and durability of the alleged product is certainly an act of an unfair trade practice for which the complainant got injuries need to be compensated by the ops jointly.
  1. The complainant proved on affidavit that, in March,2020 he found that, the green ply purchased from the OP 3 got damaged by termite and  immediately brought to the knowledge of the OP 3 who expressed his helplessness to pay any compensation but  the Op 3 agreed to replace the damage ply wood with new ply wood in consultation with OP 1 & 2 and  later on he remain silent caused financial loss to the complainant is proved by the complainant in his affidavit evidence as such we are of the opinion that there is sufficient cause of action to present this complaint and this complaint is presented on 15.09.2021 is well in time so also this complaint   is well maintainable before this commission. As such we are not agreed with the OPs that, the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops and this complaint is barred by limitation.
  2. The complainant has not placed any cogent materials to hold that, he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards making charges for interior design of the ply wood but he has paid total Rs.6,30,578.92 /- to the OP 3 (three) towards purchasing of alleged goods/green ply wood  is proved from the three number of retail invoice vide (i) No.2602 dt.25.11.2016 for Rs.1,18,641.60, (ii) retail invoice No.2508 dt.05.10.2016 Rs.3,71459.08 and 9iii) retail invoice No.2709 dt.16.01.2016 Rs.1,40,478.24 supported by the affidavit of the complainant. Accordingly this Commission is of the opinion that, the complainant is entitling for Rs. 6,30,578.92/- only with interest @9% from the date of filing of this complainant i.e from 15.09.2021 till it actual payment by the Op No.3(three) .
  3. Based on the above discussion, this Commission is  of the opinion that, the Ops are deficient in service and indulge in unfair trade practice caused injuries to the complainant for which they jointly liable to compensate the complainant by replacing the alleged product with new one of same brand without charging any extra price for the same from the complainant or else they are liable to refund the cost of the product with interest @ 9% per annum till its actual payment to the complainant. So also the Ops are liable to pay  cost of this litigation. Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

This consumer complaint is allowed in part on contest against the Opp.Parties with the following direction :- The Opposite Party No. 3(three) is here by directed to  replace  the alleged product/Green Ply Wood sold to the complainant with  new one of the same brand /model with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount and to pay monetary  compensation of Rs 25,000/- which include litigation  cost  to the complainant within 45(forty-five) days  from the date of receiving of this order   or in alternative pay back the sale price of the subject product/Green Ply  .e Rs. 6,30,578.92/- only with interest @9% P.A from the date of filing of this complainant i.e from 15.09.2021 till it actual payment to the complainant. The Op No 3(three) is at liberty to get it reimburse from the Op 1(one) & 2(two) on his own cost.

    It is further directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45(forty-five) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order falling which the OPs shall jointly be liable to pay Rs.200/-(five) each per day as delayed compensation to the complainant till compliance of this order and the Ops shall be liable to be prosecuted under penal provision of Section 72 of C.P.Act 2019 on their cost .Pending application if any is also stands disposed of accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

              Sd/-

          President

                                   I agree.

                                               Sd/-

                                             Member

     Pronounced  in the open forum today on this    day of 22nd February 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

    The complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period of time in want of quorum of this Commission.

    Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Aswini Kumar Patra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.