BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 311/2008 Filed on 17/12/2008

Dated: 15..06..2010

Complainant:

B. Sreekantan Nair, Rajasree, Karimanal, Kulathoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 583.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. ANZIA TIMBERS, Allapra (PO), Perumbavoor – 683 553. Represented by its Proprietor/Managing Partner.

    

2. M/s. Vijaya Glass Emporium, 14/8568 A, T D Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. Represented by its Proprietor.

   (By Adv. Jayaprakash. D)

3. M.K. Kabeer, M/s. Anzia Timbers, Allapra – P.O., Perumbavoor – 683 553.

(Opp. Parties 1 & 3 by advocate M.K. Aboobacker)

This O.P having been heard on 01..03..2010, the Forum on 15..06..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a self employed individual eking out his livelihood by executing shuttering materials to construction activities. The complainant had ordered for 700 Nos of 12mm and 18mm thick marine plywood of size 2.40 metre X 1.20 metre, useful and suitable for shuttering purpose and paid a total amount of Rs. 2,32,200/-. This was represented and assured to be of marine quality capable of withstanding drenching by water by all the opposite parties. The said marine plywood is being manufactured in the 1^st opposite party company and supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant had ordered 700 Nos of the marine plywood from the opposite parties without knowing the substandard nature of the product and fully believing in the representation of the opposite parties. However further consignments were not supplied by the opposite parties as there were defects and quality complaint in the product already supplied. As the opposite parties had supplied plywood for an amount of Rs.69,991/- as per invoice No.103 dated 28/2/2008, the opposite parties are bound to return the balance of total amount paid less the cost of plywood already supplied at Rs.1,67,209/-. On using the plywood during April 2008 for shuttering works, it was seen that the quality of the plywood supplied is substandard and defective, resulting in peeling off of the plywood laminates. Thus it is found that the plywood supplied is not marine plywood and is of inferior quality that cannot withstand drenching by water from concrete mix being the material was not water resistant as represented. The opposite parties were incessantly contacted over telephone which they shuns to reply. Finally the opposite parties had agreed for the replacement of sheets with marine plywood and or refund the money received by them and compensate the damages but without any avail. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties 1 & 3 remain ex-parte.

3. 2^nd opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The allegation that the 2^nd opposite party, agent is instrumental in canvassing and represented the product to be marine plywood of superior quality capable of withstanding moisture and water and represented to be suitable for shuttering works in civil construction etc.....in para 2 & 3 is false and untrue and hence denied by the 2^nd opposite party. There is no cause of action that has arisen in the above case for the complainant against the 2^nd opposite party as alleged and narrated in the complaint and the assertion that the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction is vested with the Hon'ble Forum is only to harass and subjugate the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has not transacted any business with the complainant in the above case. The 2^nd opposite party is not an agent of the 1^st opposite party and the allegation and averments in the complaint contrary to above is not correct and without any basis. The complaint is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant has not placed any order to the 2^nd opposite party nor any quotation was given by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties. Opposite parties had no evidence.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

4. Points 1 & 2: The payment of Rs.70,000/- for the purchase of plywood by the complainant from 1^st opposite party is proved from Ext.P1 & Ext. P2. The complainant has pleaded that he has paid an amount of Rs.2,37,200/- in different stages. Exts. P2 to P5 prove the acknowledgment of a total amount of Rs.72,700/-. Besides these documents the complainant has not produced any document showing the payment of the amount.

5. According to the complainant the plywood supplied was of poor quality, substandard and defective resulting in peeling off of the plywood laminates on drenching from concrete mix. According to the complainant, the matter was informed to the opposite parties and complainant pleads that the opposite parties had agreed to replace sheets or refund the money. The 2^nd opposite party alone has filed their version denying the entire allegations levelled against them. It is evident that, there is no document furnished by the complainant to prove any transactions with the 2^nd opposite party. As per the records, the dealings are all with opposite parties 1 & 3. But opposite parties 1 & 3 have neither appeared before the Forum nor contested the case. Hence the allegations levelled against them stand uncontroverted.

6. From the documents it could be seen that the complainant has informed the opposite parties regarding the defects and the poor quality of marine plywood. As per Ext. P7, one T. Sukumaran, Scientist/Engineer SF has certified that 12mm and 18mm plywood was found to be substandard and got peeled off when coming into contact with water in the concrete mix due to the fact that the item is not marine plywood. There were 50 numbers of 12mm thick of size 2.40 x 1.20 meters and 150 numbers of 18mm thick of size 2.40 x 1.20 meters and all these materials got damaged and disintegrated due to the inherent defect of being not of marine quality standards. The opposite party has not cross examined the said witness and hence it stands unshaken.

7. From the above discussion, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint as against opposite parties 1 & 3. The act of the opposite parties 1 & 3 in supplying substandard and poor quality of plywood amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 3 shall refund Rs.1,42,700/- (Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 72,700/-) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order. On compliance of the above order, the opposite parties 1 & 3 are entitled to take back the defective plywood from the complainant. 2^nd opposite party is exempted from any liability.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day June, 2010.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No.311/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sreekantan Nair. B

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of Tax invoice dated 28/02/2008 P2 : Demand Draft certificate pertaining to DD No.336602 dated 16/2/08 for Rs. 70,000/-.

P3 : Copy of acknowledgment dated 27/2/2008

P4 : " acknowledgment dated 27//02/2008

P5 : " " 25/03/2008

P6 : COINPAR Notice dated 12/06/08

P7 : Copy of the certificate dated 28/6/2008

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents: : NIL

PRESIDENT