KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

COMMON JUDGMENT IN
APPEAL Nos. 707/2011, 852/2011 and 85/2012

JUDGMENT DATED : 22.02.2012

PRESENT:

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                           : MEMBER

SMT. A. RADHA                                                           :  MEMBER

APPEAL No. 707/2011

Alappat Home Furniture and Decors,

Fast Bldg. Diwan Narayana Menon Road,

Near Indoor Stadium, Thrissur 20,                             

Represented by Proprietor Omana Francis,              :  APPELLANT

W/o. Francis, Paltjingal House,

Thrissur District.

(By Adv. P. Rajmohan)

Vs

1.      Capt. V.A. Ramesh Chandran

          Rohini Cheriyanath House,

          Near Santhi Nagar, Bilathikulam,

          Calicut, Pin : 673 006.

2.      Mrs. Sheeja Ramesh Chandran,

          W/o. V.A. Ramesh Chandran,

          Rohini Cheriyanath Houe,                                : RESPONDENTS

          Near Santhi Nagar, Bilathikulam,

          Calicut, Pin : 673 006.

3.      M/s. Rubber Wood India Pvt. Ltd.,

          IPC Philadelphia Building, K.K. Road,

          Kanjikuzhi PB. No. 1425,

          Muttambalam P.O., Kottayam – 686 004.

APPEAL No. 85/2012

M/s. Rubber Wood India Pvt. Ltd.,

IPC Philadelphia Building, K.K. Road,

Kanjikuzhi PB. No. 1425,                                   : APPELLANT

Muttambalam P.O., Kottayam – 686 004.

(By Adv.  S. ReghuKumar)

Vs

1.      Capt. V.A. Ramesh Chandran

          Rohini Cheriyanath House,

          Near Santhi Nagar, Bilathikulam,

          Calicut, Pin : 673 006.

2.      Mrs. Sheeja Ramesh Chandran,

          W/o. V.A. Ramesh Chandran,

          Rohini Cheriyanath Houe,                                : RESPONDENTS

          Near Santhi Nagar, Bilathikulam,

          Calicut, Pin : 673 006.

3.      M/s Alapatt Furniture and Decors,

          Fast Building, Diwan Narayana-

          Menon Road, Near Indoor Stadium,

          Thrissur – 680020.

APPEAL No. 852/2011

1.      Capt. V.A. Ramesh Chandran

          Rohini Cheriyanath House,

          Near Santhi Nagar, Bilathikulam,

          Calicut, Pin : 673 006.

2.      Mrs. Sheeja Ramesh Chandran,

          W/o. V.A. Ramesh Chandran,

          Rohini Cheriyanath Houe,                               : APPELLANTS

          Near Santhi Nagar, Bilathikulam,

          Calicut, Pin : 673 006.

(By Adv. Shyam Padman)

Vs.

1.      M/s Alapatt Furniture and Decors,

          Fast Building, Diwan Narayana-

          Menon Road, Near Indoor Stadium,

          Thrissur – 680020.

2.      M/s. Rubber Wood India Pvt. Ltd.,                :  RESPONDENTS

          IPC Philadelphia Building, K.K. Road,

          Kanjikuzhi PB. No. 1425,

          Muttambalam P.O., Kottayam – 686 004.

COMMON JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER

          All the three appeals are heard together and thereafter we are disposing of them by this common judgment. The CDRF, Kozhikode in O.P No. 80/05 allowed the complaint and opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.10,000/- within a month.

2.      Aggrieved by the order the opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred appeal nos. 707/11 and 85/12 and the complainant filed appeal No. 852/11 for enhancement of quantum of compensation.

3.      The allegation made in the complaint is that the opposite parties supplied defective and inferior quality materials and installed furniture unscientifically. The further averment made by the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party claimed that they have vast experience in the field of interior decoration, modular kitchen, wardrobes etc and are the authorized suppliers of reputed branch like India Wood manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. The rubber wood was guaranteed for life against from the fungi, termite and borer along with 10 years warranty for finished products. The 1^st opposite party also stated that the rubber wood used were supplied by the 2^nd opposite party and the kitchen accessories and appliances were of KAFF. The complainant paid Rs.3,47,668/- to the 1^st opposite party.

4.      After the completion of the work within a month the fungal infestation was found in the wardrobe, crockery shelf including the sink unit. The defect was brought to the notice of 1^st opposite party. Nothing was done to rectify the defect. This was also brought to the notice of 2^nd opposite party. It is stated in the complaint that the quality control officer of the 2^nd opposite party inspected the defective items. The allegation of the complainant is to the effect that the 1^st opposite party mis-represented that the products used by the 1^st opposite party are that of 2^nd opposite party where as the 2^nd opposite party denied that the 1^st opposite party is not their authorized supplier. The complainant sustained loss and injury by the act of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and hence the complaint filed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

5.      The 1^st opposite party filed version and contended that the opposite party completed the furniture work to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. The furniture was made with treated seasoned rubber wood which was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party was not liable for the alleged defects to the furniture. The fungus infestation was caused due to the improper management of the complainant. It is asserted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant was not amenable to get the defective parts replaced at the expense of 1^st opposite party. The rubber wood and materials provided by the 2^nd opposite party were of inferior quality. The assertion of the 1^st opposite party is that they are the authorized suppliers of India wood manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.

6.      The evidence of the complainant consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts A1 to A24. Commissioner was examined as CW1 and the report marked as C1.

7.      It is in evidence from C1 report that the fungal infection were seen in the show case. Further it is also pointed out that the showcase in the kitchen was not attacked by the fungal infection or termite attack.

8.      The Forum below proceeded on the basis that the 1^st opposite party provided the furniture to the complainant. It is not in dispute that the furniture provided by the 1^st opposite party was of good quality. Accepting the case of the complainant Forum below held that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are liable to pay damages.

9.      The appellant/1^st opposite party submitted before us that the complainant did not take adequate measures to protect the wood from fungal infection. It is admitted that fungal infection was due to presence of excess moisture in the Rubber wood. The product used for the furniture was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party/3^rd respondent. The rubber wood is a perishable timber and 2^nd opposite party/ 3^rd respondent ought to have treated the rubber wood with preservative chemicals of standard prescription to extend its service. The fungus infection was not occurred due to any act of the appellant/1^st opposite party. It is also urged that the 1^st opposite party/appellant already closed their business in 2003 and hence the appellant/1^st opposite party is to be absolved from the liability.

10.    The appellant/2^nd opposite party herein submitted before us that the complaint filed against the 2^nd opposite party was not as per law. The appellant/2^nd opposite party has no direct business with the complainant. The 3^rd respondent/1^st opposite party was not an authorized dealer and mis-represented. The quality control officer was deputed by the appellant on request of the complainant and on inspection it was found that the infestation in the rubber wood used for the interior works were not the product of the appellant. It is also urged that the rubber wood utilized for interior works was not manufactured by this appellant. It is not proved that the 3^rd respondent/1^st opposite party is the dealer of this appellant. The appellant has no privity of contract between the complainants and no loss was caused by this appellant to the complainants.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued that the 1^st respondent supplied interior decoration, modular kitchen, wardrobes, crockery shelf etc on payment of Rs.3,47,668/- was not of good quality. The 1^st respondent used low quality materials to furnish the house. Though the appellant/complainant approached the respondents/opposite parties they were reluctant to take any steps to redress the grievances. The 1^st respondent /1^st opposite party made the furniture using the treated seasoned rubber wood supplied by 2^nd respondent. It is also submitted that the expert opinion pointed out that it is the fungus infection in the wood fittings and wardrobes, crockery shelf etc that caused substantial damage and loss. It is the dream of a person to build his house with his hard earned money which was curtailed by the act of the opposite parties resulting in mental agony, loss and injury to the entire family. Under the facts and circumstances the appellant /complainant sought for enhancement of compensation.

          12.    On hearing the counsels for appellants and on going through the records we find that there is a strong case for the complainant/appellant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant entrusted the work of interior decoration, modular kitchen, wardrobes, crockery shelf etc with the 1^st respondent and paid Rs.3,41,668/-. Though the defects were informed to the 1^st respondent/1^st opposite party was trying to absolve their liability and was trying to fasten the liability on the 2^nd respondent/2^nd opposite party. It is true that some raw materials were purchased from the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent was not in a position to prove that they were the authorized dealer of the 2^nd respondent. This contention was strongly denied by the 2^nd respondent /2^nd opposite party. There is no case for the 1^st respondent that the work was done satisfactorily as per the terms of agreement. It is also not proved that the 1^st respondent used the raw-materials supplied by the 2^nd respondent /2^nd opposite party alone. On the contrary, it is in evidence by the quality control officer of the 2^nd respondent that the materials used by the 1^st respondent were not supplied by 2^nd respondent. This fact was not contraverted by the 1^st respondent. It is not on record that 2^nd opposite party is having any liability towards the complainant. The statement in C1, commissioner’s Report that the show case in the kitchen has no termite attack or fungus infestation and further the statement that the complainant was keeping the dresses in the show case in the kitchen remain uncontroverted we come to the finding that the ward-robe in the kitchen is in good condition.

In the result, we find that the appellant/complainant is to be compensated for his mental agony and loss. We allow the appeal No.852/11and direct the 1^st respondent to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and also absolve the 2^nd respondent from their liability. The amount is to be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the order shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till payment.

          Appeal No. 85/12 is allowed and appeal No.707/11 is dismissed.

Office is directed to send the copy of the order with LCR to the Lower Forum urgently.

A. RADHA   :   MEMBER

                                      S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

Da