By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to return a sum of Rs.12,998.70/- being the purchase price of Vanity Cabinet Etol-0936-06(PINK) along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.12.2011, also to give compensation of Rs.11,500/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had purchased a unit of vanity cabinet Etol-0936-06(PINK) from the opposite party on 20.12.2011 by the terms of invoice No.244 and paid the sum of Rs.12,998.70/- as purchase price. At the time of purchase the opposite party has assured the quality of the product and informed that the product is free from manufacturing defects. The vanity cabinet unit purchased by the complainant is including a ceramic wash basin and a cup-board cabinet. In the original portion of the unit the wash basin is to be fixed at the top of the cup-board cabinet. The unit is fixed upon steel supports forming part of the unit and the same are to be fixed at the bottom of the cabinet with the steel screw nails attached with the support. During the 1st week of April the complainant had fixed the cabinet and installed the wash basin as instructed by opposite party. The entire unit had collapsed down immediately after the installation. On inspection, it is realized that the screw nails attached to the steel supports were not strong enough to hold the weight of the unit. Moreover, the materials used for making the cup-board cabinet were also not strong enough to hold the grip of the screw nails and the weight of the unit. The complainant contacted with opposite party and demanded to replace the entire unit with a new one. Though the opposite party agreed to replace the unit, but not done so far. On 21.04.2012 the complainant issued a Lawyer Notice to the opposite party and demanded to return of the purchase price along with compensation. But the opposite party did not act upon. Hence the complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1st opposite party, 1st opposite party contented that the transaction took place at Koduvally, No cause of action has been raised in Wayanad. Hence this Forum have no jurisdiction. It is the poor workmanship deployed by the complainant resulted in the collapse of the product. In the version of 2nd opposite party, 2nd opposite party contented that there is no manufacturing defect in the material. The product manufactured by this opposite party is of high quality and there is no manufacturing defect at all to the product. It is the poor workmanship deployed by the complainant resulted the collapse. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 2nd opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2. Commission Report is marked as Ext.C1. Defective product is marked as MO1. The opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is also marked. In the examination of OPW1, the OPW1 deposed that the basin is to be fixed in the wall in required height with rack bolt. The basin is to be installed by fixing it in the wall with 2 bolt. The weight of the basin is to be controlled by the rack bolt. The weight of the basin is not controlled by the cabin. After fixing the basin in the wall, the cabin is to be placed under the basin. The basin is not a movable one but cabin is movable. As per the commission report ie Ext.C1, it is not seen that the basin is fixed on the wall by rack bolt. As per Ext.C1, it is seen that the basin is placed on the cabin and it is collapsed and broken. The cabin is used only for keeping soap, powder, towel, hand wash items etc... On perusal of the basin, it is seen that there are holes in the basin and the central bolt is meant for fixing the basin on the wall by using rack bolt. The basin is more weightful and the cabin is not strong enough to support the basin. Even if rack bolt is not supplied by the opposite parties, a reasonable and prudent workman should be careful enough to install the basin by fixing it on the wall by bolt. On verifying the complaint, proof affidavit of complainant and commission report it is seen that the basin is fixed on the cabin by the workman employed by the complainant. So on verifying the entire evidences, the Forum found that there is no manufacturing defect to the MO1 series and the reason for the collapse is due to the poor workmanship of the person employed by the complainant in fixing the basin and cabin. So the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties in the matter. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of March 2015.
Date of Filing:07.06.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Baby Mathew. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Rajeev. Technician, Eurotech.
OPW2. Rajesh. Carpenter.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Invoice. dt:20.12.2011.
A2 Series. Lawyer Notice, Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment.
C1. Commissioner Report.
MO1. Defective Vanity Cabinet.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Brochure of Vanity Cabinets.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
