<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.02.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.463/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. A.Shivrudraswamy,S/o Adivesharadhya,Age:major, Residing at No.21324th Main, 23rd Cross,Judicial Layout, GKVK Post,Bangalore – 560 065Advocate – Sri.N.M.KaradiguddaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Mr.Manjunath,Prop:Valmiki Furnishings & Furnitures,10, 1st A-Main Road,Near Canara Bank,Yelahanka New Town,Bangalore – 560 064Advocate – Sri.P.K.Venkatesh Prasad<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and replace the defective TV wall circuit with a brand new free from termite and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased TV Wall unit wooden imported quality show case from OP on 21.09.2008 for a total cost of Rs.16,650/- and paid an advance of Rs.1,000/-. When the said wooden show case was delivered to his house he promised to pay the remaining balance. After the delivery OP collected the remaining balance. With in a span of a month or so from the date of installation of the said show case complainant noticed that the said show case is attacked by termite and the bottom portion was entirely damaged. OP promised that the said wooden show case is chemically treated for anti-termite protection but it proved to be false. Immediately he brought the said defect to the notice of the OP. OP failed to replace the same and also failed to refund the cost. OP came forward to pay only Rs.9,000/-. Complainant is not agreeable for the same. For no fault of his, complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. When his repeated requests and demands went in futile, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the carelessness, negligence on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP he is only a dealer of the said product not the manufacturer. Complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to this complaint. Hence complaint is not maintainable. The building wherein complainant is residing the wall is not treated with anti-termite and if any termite affected the wooden basement of the said show case it is because of the negligence on the part of the complainant himself. The whole house is not provided with pest control treatment. OP has not given any warranty with regard to the said show case. Complainant has not filed the report of a technical expert to speak about the defect in the said wooden show case. Under such circumstances the bare and vague allegations of the complainant can’t be believed. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service and unfair <br /> trade practice on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has purchased one wooden show case from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.16,650/- on 21.09.2008. The said wooden show case was installed at his house. According to the complainant, OP promised that the said wood used for the show case is chemically treated with anti termite. Complainant believed the words of the OP and took delivery of the said show case TV wall unit got installed at his house. It is further contended that within a span of two months he noticed defects being caused to the bottom portion of the show case due to termite attack. Immediately he brought the said fact to the notice of the OP. There was no response. Complainant felt that he is duped.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk his responsibility.<br /> <br /> 8. It is contended by the OP that the manufacturer of the said product is not made as a party. At one breath OP admits the chance of attack of termite in another breath he wants to wash of his hands from the liability. The strange defence of the OP is that it has not given warranty with respect to the said item. This kind of defence amounts to deficiency in service. When a fast moving product comes in the market naturally it will have some warranty conditions. The defence of the OP that there is no such warranty itself speaks to unfair trade practice. The other defence of the OP is that complainant has not taken the assistance of the technical expert to examine and assess the damages caused.<br /> <br /> 9. When the complainant is able to establish that the damages caused to the said wooden wall show case is due to termite attack the burden is on OP to show that their show case is of a good quality, chemically treated and there is no possibilities of termite attack. OP has not discharged its obligation and commitment. <br /> <br /> 10. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. The allegations of the OP that complaint is bad for non joinder of the manufacturer of the said product has no basis.<br /> 11. Viewed from any angle we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the relief claimed. Of course the claim of the complainant for replacement of the whole show case and compensation of Rs.40,000/- appears to be exorbitant and unreasonable. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.4,500/- and a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4,500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />