By Jayasree Kallat, Member
The petition was filed on 04.03.2005. The complainants had placed an order on the promises and assurance claimed by the opposite parties for the interior decoration, modular kitchen, wardrobes, crockery shelf etc. Opposite party No.1 had claimed that they were a reputed establishments having vast experience in this field. Opposite party No.1 had also stated that they were the authorized suppliers of reputed branches like India wood manufactured by second opposite party Rubco. OP No.1 had offered warranty for 10 years for the materials used and work done by them. The Rubber wood was guaranteed for life against fungi, termite and borer. The complainants paid an advance of Rs.25,000/- on 19.12.2003. A further sum of Rs.82668/- was collected by Ist opposite party from the complainants on 18.03.2004. On 18.05.2004 complainants had to pay Rs.1,10,000/- and on 01.06.2004 again Rs.1,00,000/- was paid. On 11.07.2004 Rs.30000/- was collected by the opposite parties. Contrary to the promise and assurance given by the opposite parties within a month of completion of work fungal infestation was found in the wardrobe, loft and crockery shelf including the sing unit. The complainants had immediately informed this fact to first opposite party. On 16.08.2004 staff and technician of the Ist opposite party inspected and convinced about the fungi infestation. In spite of the same the first opposite party had failed and neglected to do anything to rectify the defects and redress the grievance of the complainants. The complainants had intimated both the Ist and second opposite party regarding the fungal infestation. Due to the negligent and deficient act of the opposite parties the complainant’s had suffered much loss injury and hardships. The complainants are alleging that the opposite parties had used low quality materials for furnishing the house. In the presence of the staff of the Ist opposite party on 26.08.2004 the quality control officer of the second opposite party had inspected the defective items. OP No.2 had intimated the complainant through a letter dtd.08.09.2004 that the fungal infested Rubber wood board used for interior works and furniture by the first opposite party at the residence of the complainants were not their products. The complainants allege that the first opposite party have been indulging in unfair trade practice. The second opposite party was informed about the grievance of the complainants. Even though several notices were sent to rectify the defects both opposite parties have not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complainants. Hence this complaint is filed for relief.
Opposite party No.1 filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. OP NO.1 has not approached the complainant to furnish his house. There was no negligence or deficiency on the part of OP No.1. OP No.1 denies the averments of the complainants that due to the act of the opposite party No.1 complainant had sustained loss and injury. OP NO.1 has not given any assurance to the complainant. OP No.1 has not done any unfair trade practice .OP No.1 has manufactured and furnished the house of the complainants as per the interest of the complainants themselves. OP No.1 has used the product of OP No.2. OP No.1 has given assurance as per the document of OP No.2. OPNo.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. If any infestation of fungi for the wood has happened OP No.2 whose product is used for manufacturing and furnishing the house of the complainants is liable. This petition is filed against OP No.1 only to harass. Hence OP No.1 prays to dismiss the petition.
OP No.2 filed a version stating that the petition is not maintainable against OP No.2. The Ist OP used to purchase chemically treated Rubber wood board occasionally from OP No.2 for resale. The last purchase of OP No.1 was on 16.10.2003 for a value of Rs.1,20,664/-. The averment in 3rd Para of the complaint that OP NO.1 is the authorized supplier of OP No.2 is not correct. OP NO.2 has not appointed OP No.1 as their authorized dealer. The Ist OP had misrepresented OP No.2 Company and secured orders for works to supply furniture. When OP No.2 had come to know about this complaint they have deputed their quality control officer to attend the complaint and do technical inspection of the products in question. On inspection it was found that the fungal infested Rubber Wood Board used in the interior works were not the product of OP No.2. More over any timber product whether it is rubber wood or not is to be protected from fungi attack by providing suitable protective coating as per standard engineering practices. The complainant can not claim any damage from OP No.2. OP No.2 are not furniture manufacturer and do not offer any furniture in the market either directly or indirectly. The product in question is furniture manufactured by the first opposite party using different raw materials including rubber wood. The Ist OP has not approached OP No.2 with this problem. They have used the name of OP No.2 to defend themselves. As the second OP was not involved at any stage of the transaction and has not authorized any person to represent or undertake such supply contract for furniture OP No.2 is not liable to pay any amount for the complainants. OP No.2 prays to absolve them from this case.
Points for consideration.
Point No.1 whether this complainant is entitled for any relief sought.
Point No.2. If so what is the amount entitled by the complainants.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A29 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral evidence adduced or documents marked on the side of opposite party. Adv. Commissioner had inspected and Ext.X1 report filed.
The case of the complainants is that they have placed order for furnishing their newly build house at Calicut to OP No.1. The definite case of the complainants is that the order was given to OP No.1 because of the assurance and promise that the materials used are of good quality and the materials are supplied by OP No.2. Rubber Wood India Pvt.Ltd. OP No.1 has also given warranty of 10 years for certain materials. Ext.A4 document is produced by the complainants which shows 10 years limited warranty on cabinets. The complainants have placed order depending upon the promise of Ist OP that the materials are of good quality which is supplied by Rubco KAFF and India wood. OP No.2 have taken a stand that they are in no way involved in this case as they have not supplied any materials either to the complainants or OP No.1.. In the version of OP No.2 it is stated that the first OP used to purchase chemically treated Rubber Wood occasionally from OP No.2 for resale through their shop. OP NO.2 has clearly stated in the second Para of their version that the last purchase of OP NO.1 was on 16.10.2003. It is the contention of OP No, 2 that they have not appointed OP No.1 Alappat Furniture & Decors as their authorized dealers. The complainants have produced documents Ext.A1 to A29. Of these 29 documents Ext.A2, & A9 are the only two documents which has the name of Agro wood Rubco and KAFF . Ext.A2 is the bill for Modular Kitchen and word robes. All the bills and invoices are given by Alappat Furniture and Decors ie.OP No.1. Ext.A4 the document pertaining to warranty coverage is also given by OP No.1. All these documents are proof enough to show that OP No.1 is the party fully involved in supplying the material and furnishing the house of the complainants. OP No.2 is not directly involved. There is no document to prove that OP No.1 is the authorized dealers of OP No.2. Now regarding the complaint an Adv.Commissioner was appointed and a detailed report Ext.X1 is filed. On a perusal of the report and photographs it is proved beyond doubt that the complainants have a genuine case. It was seen that the word robe, the wooden show case are damaged due to fungi infestation and termite attack. It is also seen that the wood when a slight pressure is applied crumbled. A perusal of the photographs produced also show that the show case, word robe and cabinet are fungi infested . After spending Lakhs of rupees; for furnishing the house the complainant had to suffer these damages . The bills and invoices produced by the complainants show that the materials were supplied by OP No.1. Even though OP No.1 claims that they are the dealers of OP No.2 they have not produced any concrete proof. Whether the house is furnished by OP No.1 or OP No.2 from the evidence s, documents, andX1 report it is proved beyond doubt that the complainants have sustained loss and damage. In such a circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainants are entitled for relief.
Point No.2 From the evidence the documents and the Commission report it has come out that the complainants are entitled for relief. The complainants have not given details regarding the actual amount for the damaged parts. It is noted that certain parts of the wooden cabin are fungi infested. It is the case of the complainants that to repair these damages huge amount is required. No specific amount or calculation is produced by the complainants. OP No.2 in their version have stated that any timber product including rubber wood are to be protected from fungi attack by providing suitable protective coating as per standard engineering practices. OP No.1 also has taken the contention that the materials got damaged because of the improper usage in Para 12 of the version. OP No.1 has stated that Modular kitchen, word robes, crockery shelf and arrangements in the kitchen if at all infested by fungi it is because the complainant has not kept these portion with care and caution. The complainants have grievance that the furniture supplied by OP No.1 claiming to be the products of OP No.2 became damaged and have claimed a huge amount to replace and reset the whole interior portion. We are of the opinion that the complainants are entitled for relief but the compensation they have asked for is too much . As OP No.1 is responsible for decorating the house they are the one liable to pay the lion’s portion of the relief to the complainants. In our opinion OP No.1 has procured orders on behalf of the goodwill of OP No.2 which is akin to unfair trade practice. OP NO.2 even though has taken the contention that they are not liable to pay any amount as they have not provided any material to the complainants it can not be fully accepted . OPNo.2 has stated that they are taking legal action against OPNo.1for misrepresenting and giving false claim to the customers using OP No.2 company’s name. In our opinion this act of OP No.1 is unfair trade practice. It has come out that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and also negligence on the part of OP No.2 in not looking into the complaints of these complainants and taking action. Hence we are of the opinion that complainants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP NO.1 and Rs.10,000/- from OP NO.2.
In the result the petition is allowed and OP NO.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and OP NO.2 is directed to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainants within one month of receiving the copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 26th day of August 2011.
Date of filing:04.03.2005.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/- MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Quotation issued by the first opposite party dtd.22.11.03.
A2. Job order issued by the Ist opposite party dtd.19.12.03.
A3. Letter issued by the Ist opposite party dtd. 03.03.2004.
A4.Warranty card issued by the first opposite party
A5. Special Power of Attorney dtd.15.09.2004.
A6.Letter issued by the Ist opposite party dtd. 29.03.2004.
A7.Receipt issued by the first opposite party dtd. 18.05.2004
A8. Receipt issued by the first opposite party dtd.14.07.2004
A9.Cash credit bill for Rs.4960/- dtd.16.07.2004.
A10.Receipt dtd. 01.06.2004 for Rs.100000/-
A11.Invoice issued by the first opposite party dtd. 29/06/04(3 inNos.)
A12. Proforma issued by the first opposite party and Receipt dtd.18.03.04
A13.Letter issued by the complainant dtd.18.08.04. with acknowledgement card.
A14.Letter issued by the first opposite party dtd. 24.08.04.
A15.Letter issued by the complainant dtd.24.08.04.
A16. Letter issued by the second opposite party dtd.25.08.04.
A17.Registered letter issued by the complainant to the Ist opposite party with postal
receipt and acknowledgement due dtd. 08.09.04.
A18. Letter issued by the 2nd opposite party dtd.08.09.04.
A19.Letter issued by the complainant to the Rubber Board dtd.15.09.04.
A20. Reply letter to the complainant by rubber board dtd.20.09.04
A21. Letter issued by the complainant to the Rubber Board dtd.28.09.04.
A22.Registered Lawyer notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite parties
with postal receipt and ack.due dtd.28.09.04.
A23. Letter issued by the Rubber Board to the complainant dtd. 29.09.04.
A24.Reply issued by the Ist opposite party dtd.19.10.04.
A25.Reply issued by the Ist opposite party dtd. 20.10.04
A26 Registered lawyer notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to Ist OP dtd. 25.10.04.
A27.Invoice issued by the Ist opposite party dtd.07.11.04.
A28 Letter issued by the Ist opposite party dtd.Nil
A29. Contract of service of the Great eastern shipping company dtd. 07.10.04.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Capt.V.A.Rameshchandran(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
