IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 28.8.2014
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.221/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. P.S. Anilkumar 1. Smt. Sindhu Suresh
Parankam Vilayil Pala Vilayil
Kaduvinal P.O. Kitchen Fashions, Design
Vallikunnam – 690 501 Quality Trust, Kaduvinal P.O.
Vallikunnam – 690 501
Alappuzha
2. Sri. Suresh Kumar
Sree Krishna Mandiram
Sakthikulngara P.O.
Sakthikulangara
Kollam District
(By Adv. C. Parameswaran –
for opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for kitchen works for Rs.2,65,000/-. The opposite party has completed the kitchen works on August, 2012. When the complainant returned from abroad, he came to see that some part of the kitchen works became damaged and he informed the opposite party about it. But there was no result from the opposite party. He went to abroad and he contacted the opposite party several times, but so far he failed to repair the damage of the kitchen works. Hence he filed a written complaint before the Police Station on 26.8.2014. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, this complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The kitchen works was done by the opposite parties by using marine plywood and mahogany wood. The car-case was done with marine plywood and the door was with the mahogany wood. The damage occurred due to the careless handling by the complainant. As per the agreement complainant is bound to pay Rs.2,65,000/- , but the complainant paid only Rs.2,25,000/- to the opposite party. The complaint is filed in order to avoid the liability of balance payment to the opposite party.
3. The complainant’s power of attorney holder was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 series and A2. First opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents were produced marked as Exts.B1and B2. The expert commissioner was examined CW1. The commission report is marked as Ext.C1.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for construction of a kitchen works. According to the complainant he had paid Rs.2,65,000/- to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties stated that they received only Rs.2,25,000/-. Ext.A1 (a) is the copy of the cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- pay to the first opposite party. Ext.A1(b) is the receipt issued by the second opposite party for Rs.1,00,000/-. From the Ext.A1 series (a) and (b), it is clear that complainant had paid 2 lakhs to the opposite party. In the version the opposite parties admitted that they received 2,25,000/- from the complainant. According to the complainant, the wood used by the opposite party was inferior quality and due to which the kitchen works done by the opposite party damaged. In order to prove this allegation, complainant produced the commission report which marked as Ext.C1. While cross examining the PW1, she admitted the Ext.B1 document the email copy of the agreement with second opposite party and the complainant. As per Ext.B1 agreement, the total amount agreed for construction is Rs.2,42,012/-. As per Ext.B1 agreement, car-case has to be built with the marine plywood and frontage has to be built with mahogany wood. The expert commissioner in his report Ext.C1 opined that 1/3 of the kitchen work was with the mahogany wood and 2/3 was with the plywood. While cross examining the expert he stated that the plywood used for the construction was of inferior quality and it became fully damaged. According to the opposite party the plywood used was marine plywood. But the expert commissioner totally denied it. He deposed before the Forum that, “marine plywood IqSnbXmsW¦n shÅw ]nSn¡mdnÃ.” He also stated that he assessed the cost for the construction, as per the construction is to be made of mahogany wood. Hence we cannot rely the assessment made by the expert commissioner regarding the value of the loss. But the commissioner categorically stated that the total construction made by the opposite party became damaged. From the forgoing discussion, we are of opinion that the construction made by the opposite party after receiving an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is not worthy. The plywood used by the opposite party was of inferior quality and the wooden frontage became damaged. The work done by the opposite party completed in the year 2012, the complaint is filed in the year 2014, if the construction damaged within 2 years, the mental agony of the complainant will be much heavy. Hence he is entitled to get compensation for the same. The failure on the part of the opposite parties in doing the construction with good quality of plywood and wood amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint allowed as follows:-
1) The opposite parties are directed to replace the damaged kitchen cabin with new one to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of one month after the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty five thousand only) from the opposite parties along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint (28.8.2014) till realization. In the event of payment the opposite parties are at liberty to remove and take back the materials – damaged kitchen cabin from the house of the complainant at his own cost.
2) In case of replacement of the kitchen cabin, the complainant is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.17,012/- (Rupees seventeen thousand and twelve only) [Rs.2,42,012 – Rs.2,25,000] to the opposite parties.
3) The opposite parties are also directed pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
4) The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 29th of February, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Anitha Ramesh (Witness)
Ext.A1 (a) - Copy of cheque for Rs.1 lakh
Ext.A1 (b) - Copy of cash receipt for Rs.1 lakh
Ext.A2 - Letter of Authorization
CW1 - D. Gopakumar (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sindhu Suresh (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the agreement
Ext.B2 - Copy of the invoice dated 14.4.2011
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by : - pr/-
Compared by: -
