D.O.F:22/01/2021      

                                                                                                              D.O.O:12/03/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                  CC.20/2021

Dated this, the 12^th day of March 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      : MEMBER

Sumesh Kumar, Aged 35 years,

S/o Sukumaran, R/at Kariyathil House

Anoor, P.O. Karivellur,

Kannur District – 670521.                                                    : Complainant

(Adv: A. Radhakrishnan)

And

M/s. MBJ Enterprises,

Plot No. 224/225, Survey No. 73(1),

Achad Industries Estate Village, Achad,

Tauka Talasari, Palaghar District,

Maharashtra.                                                                                : Opposite Party

(Adv: K. Vinod Kumar)

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant is that he is an employee running the Unit dream interior at Kalikkadavu.  He used to purchase shutters and cabinets.  On 25/102020 he placed an order for cabinet and shutter worth Rs. 34482/- delivery scheduled on 13/11/2020 items delivered were of law quality and keeping sub standard quality.  The complainant therefore sought replacement of the articles.  The complainant therefore sought replacement of the articles.  The opposite party admitted the defects, Opposite Party delayed replacement complainant suffered loss in business and repudiation.  He claims Rs. 30,000/- for compensation and price of the articles and cost of litigation.

            The opposite Party appeared and filed written version.  The Opposite party denied averments in the complaint and stated that complaint is not maintainable.  Further contents that complainant received the goods on 11/11/2020, articles delivered of good quality complainant is directed to return to check the claim.  No specific details as to number of articles are defective they supplied good quality articles and defect free claim for replacement were rejected and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1 and one witness as Pw2, Ext A1 to A3 documents marked.  Opposite Party not adduced any evidence.

            Considering the rival contentions following points arised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party in supplying the law quality materials as claimed?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service from Opposite party and whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

Complainant documents Ext A1 quotation receipt, Ext A2 tax invoice, Ext A3 cash receipt and C1 Expert report

     Evidence of complainant shows that he is doing the work on kitchen cabinets on self employment basis as livelihood.  The complainant admittedly purchased articles and paid its price to the Opposite Party.  Ext C1 report filed expert states that on inspection the cabinets were dismantled.  She reported they are of defective, substandard and thus claims to complainant is genuine.  The opposite party says that they told the complainant to return those items but not returned without replacement. So Opposite party is ready to obtain return of articles and also its replacement.  Since complainant is doing work on self employment for livelihood he is a consumer and it is not sale or for commercial purpose.  Therefore the complaint is maintainable.

            When there is defects and opposite Party is prepared to replace but not returned without guaranty of replacement.  Opposite party is liable to refund the price paid less its depreciation.  On payment complainant is liable to return the articles to opposite party mentioned by expert commissioner.

            Till date even after filing complaint no attempt was made to rectify defect or provide service and then it is a deficiency in service from opposite party part.  Since there is deficiency in service and negligence from the part of opposite party in supplying defective articles, no replacing it, they are liable to pay compensation thereof.  The complainant claimed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.  Complainant has adduced evidence that he suffered financial loss in terms of money.  The consumer Commission hereby fix the compensation as Rs. 10,000/- and said amount is considered to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the case and hence the Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards price of articles after depreciation along with 8% interest per annum from date of complaint till payment with Rs 5000/- as cost of litigation.

            In the result complaint is allowed in part directing opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards price to articles after depreciation with 8% from date of complaint till its payment and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation of deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

      Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Quotation Receipt

A2- Tax Invoice

A3- Cash receipt

C1- Expert Report

Witness Examined

Pw1- Sumesh Kumar

Pw2- Abdulkhader

     Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                  Assistant Registrar