By Sri. A. A. Vijayan, President
The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The short account of the complainant's case is as follows:-
1. The complainant had purchased one office table, one book shelf and two office chairs for an amount of Rs.40,600/- on 30-05-2013 from the shop of the opposite party for presenting as gift to the brother-in-law of the complainant. At the time of purchase the complainant was made to believe that these furnitures are of high quality and for minimum 5 years no damage would be caused to them. Within two months of the purchase the office table and book shelf were found damaged due to fungoid growth so he was forced to take back this office table and book shelf from the house of his brother-in-law to his house. Inspite of repeated requests made by him to the opposite party directly as well as on over phone no action was taken by him. At last on 17-08-2013 a lawyer notice was sent to him and after 30 days of the receipt of the lawyer notice a representative of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant and these furnitures were rubbed well with a cloth for removing the fungoid growth. Again after one week they were infested with fungoid growth. The Computer, CPU and it's key board which were kept in the table were also damaged. When the opposite party was intimated his representative again visited the house of the complainant and offered to replace the said furnitures. But nothing was done by the opposite party. When the complainant contacted the opposite party with the same requests, he washed his hands. The reason for the damage caused to the furniture was the low quality materials used for making the furniture. Moreover the service which is to be rendered by the opposite party was also deficient. Since there was no other go for the complainant he was constrained to make new furniture spending Rs.28,000/- and handed over to his brother-in-law. Due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony, financial loss and insult. So the complainant is entitled to the value of the office table and book shelf which comes to Rs.28,900/- together with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and insult suffered by him.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed version admitting the transaction. But he added that at the time of the sale he had convinced the complainant that the above furnitures were made of MDF Board and shall not be rubbed using wet cloth and they shall not be placed in place having moisture. After sale the complainant has never informed this opposite party either directly or over phone regarding the damage caused to the furniture. On the other hand after the transaction the opposite party received a lawyer notice on 17-08-2013. After getting that notice this opposite party contacted the complainant on many occasions over phone and expressed his reachings to solve the problems. But the complainant was not even reluctant to show that damaged furnitures. As a result of the requests made by the opposite party on several occasions the complainant gave sanction to see the furniture. The service persons of the opposite parties found on inspection that the fungoid growth appeared due to moisture and complainant was also convinced of The complainant even admitted at that time one of his relatives had rubbed the furniture with wet cloth. It is false to say that the service persons of the opposite party visited the complainant and removed the fungal growth and again fungal growth appeared after one week and on revealing the same to opposite party he uttered that he had no liability to repair the furniture. The materials used for those furnitures were of high quality materials and they were damaged due to the careless handling of those furnitures by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as claimed.
4. The complainant and opposite party filed proof of affidavits. But they did not cross examine each other. Exts.A1 to A6 series were marked on the side of the complainant. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party as DW1. A Commission was taken out by the complainant for inspection of the furniture and her report was marked as Ext.C1.
5. Points arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether complainant sustained any loss due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
(ii) What is the compensation to be awarded to the complainant?
(iii) Reliefs and Costs.
6. Point No.(i) & (ii):-
The transaction between the complainant and opposite party is admitted. Exts.A1 is the cash bill issued by the opposite party for the purchase of the furniture. Ext.A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice and Ext.A3 is the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext.A4 series are the photographs of the furniture and Ext.A5 is the CD and Ext.A6 is the bill issued from the Studio for taking the photographs. From the admission of DW1, Exts.C1 report and Ext.A4 series, it is amply proved that the furniture were invested with fungal growth. According to the opposite party he had instructed the complainant at the time of sale of the furniture that they shall not be kept in a place where moisture is present and they shall not be cleaned with wet cloth. Though satisfactory evidence is not available to prove such instructions given by the opposite party, it is to be borne-in-mind that the Computer and it's accessories were kept in the table by the complainant. Usually nobody will use wet cloth for cleaning such furniture wherein electronic equipments are kept. If such special precautions were essential for preserving those furnitures the opposite party should have shown such instructions in Ext.A1 bill or he should have given written instructions to the customers including complainant. A bald statement in the version as well as in the affidavit is insufficient to get exoneration from liability. From the photographs and report of the Commissioner it is clear that the furnitures were heavily damaged due to the fungoid growth. It is surprising to note that DW1 the only witness examined by the opposite party narrated many things though he has never visited the house of the complainant for seeing the furnitures. He deposed before this Court only on the hear-say information received by him. Thus in the light of the available evidence it can be concluded that the shelves and table sold by opposite party to the complainant as per Ext.A1 bill were damaged due to fungoid growth. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the damage was due to the careless handling of the same by the complainant, it can be rightly held that the damage was due to inferior quality of materials used for making the furnitures. So the opposite party is liable to return the value received by him for these furnitures which were shown as item No.1 and 2 in Ext.A1 which comes to Rs.25,240/-. At the same time the complainant shall return these articles to the opposite party on receiving the amount. Though complainant demanded Rs.50,000/- as compensation we find that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- is sufficient to do justice to the parties. Points are decided accordingly.
7. On the basis of the findings on the above points the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,240/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand, Two hundred and forty only) which is the value of item No.1 and 2 in Ext.A1 bill and Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and insult suffered by the complainant. When he receives the amount the complainant shall return the disputed office table and book shelf to the opposite party. Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two thousand, five hundred only) as costs of the proceedings. The order shall be complied within 30 days from today.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2016.
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Exts.A1 to A6 series
Exts.A1 : Retail Invoice dated, 30-05-2013 by opposite party to complainant.
Exts.A2 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 17-08-2013 by complainant's
counsel to opposite party.
Exts.A3 : Acknowledgement card from opposite party to complainant's counsel.
Exts.A4 : Photographs (20 Nos.)
Exts.A5 : CD
Exts.A6series : Bill issued from the Studio for taking the photographs.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1
DW1 : Abdul Sherief, Service Supervisor of the Company of opposite party.
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Court document marked : Ext.C1
Ext.C1 : Commission Report
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
