KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 608/2015

JUDGMMENT DATED: 20.09.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 158/2012 of CDRF, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Baby Mathew, Kottrakunnel House, Onivayal, Kalpetta Post, Wayanad.

(By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. M/s Lexus International, Thamarassery Road, Palakutty Post, Koduvally.

2. Euro Tech, 18-Qureshi Mahal, MMC Road, Mahim, West Mumbai-400 016.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 158/2012 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad (District Forum for short).  The respondents are the opposite parties.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint and against the impugned order the complainant has filed this appeal. 

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows:

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 had assured the quality of the product and informed that the product was free from manufacturing defects. The vanity cabinet unit purchased by the complainant included a ceramic wash basin and a cup-board cabinet. In the original portion of the unit the wash basin was 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 first week of April the complainant had fixed the cabinet and installed the wash basin as instructed by opposite party. Very soon, the entire unit collapsed. On inspection, it was 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 had agreed to replace the unit, nothing has been done so far. On 21.04.2012 the complainant had 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 it and hence the complaint.

3. The opposite parties filed version admitting the purchase of the produce and the 1^st opposite party in their version contended that the transaction took place at Koduvally.  No cause of action has been raised in Wayanad. Hence the District Forum has no jurisdiction. It is the poor workmanship deployed by the complainant that resulted in the collapse of the product. The 2^nd opposite party in their version contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the product. The product manufactured by the opposite party was of high quality and there was no manufacturing defect at all to the product. It is the poor workmanship deployed by the complainant that caused the collapse. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

4.  The evidence adduced consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 documents were marked.  Commission Report was marked as Ext.C1. Defective product was marked as MO1. On the side of opposite party OPW1 was examined and Ext.B1 marked. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties the District Forum found that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.   Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2015 the complainant has filed this appeal. 

5.  The main grounds raised by the appellant are that the District Forum ought to have found that the Ext. C1 report itself clarified the fact that the holder and the steel supporter provided itself was defective and the materials supplied by the opposite parties are of inferior quality.  Appellant further stated that the District Forum ought to have found that it was the bounden duty of the opposite party to install such products properly and in the event of failure, that amounts to unfair trade practice. 

6.  In this case complainant was examined as OPW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked.  Expert commission report was marked as Ext. C1 and the commissioner was examined as OPW2.  The opposite party cross examined the witness.  Technical expert of the opposite party was examined as OPW1.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties and the report of the commissioner, the District Forum found that there was no manufacturing defect to the product 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.  For that the reason, the complaint was dismissed.  The findings of the District Forum are that on the basis of the deposition of OPW1 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 bolts. 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 i.e; 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 District Forum found that there are no 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 heavy and the cabin is not strong enough to support the basin.  A reasonable and prudent workman should be careful enough to install the basin by fixing it on the wall by bolt.  If the basin is fixed on the wall by bolt it would not have collapsed and broken.  From these findings it is clear that poor workmanship deployed by the complainant is the reason for the damage of the product. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.  At this juncture there is no need to give more importance to Ext. C1 report.  No specified reason was submitted by the commissioner at the stage of examination. 

For the above mentioned reasons, we find that there is no need to interfere with the finding of the District Forum.  Therefore, the order in C.C. No. 158/2012 is confirmed.  The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No order of costs.   

                      JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb