BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

                                                                                                                                                                 CC No. 39 of 2016

                                                                                                                                                                Instituted on : 18.01.2016

                                                                                                                                                               Decided on: 14.06.2016

Sanjeev Kumar  son of  Vijay Kumar, resident of Gill Road, Kalyan Vihar, Street No. 3, Moga, District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

                                 Versus

1.       M/s. Ved Parkash Krishan Lal Glass, Plywood & Sunmica etc., Partap Road Moga, District Moga, through its proprietor/partner/director /authorized signatory.

2.       Garnet Plywoods (Redefining Excellence) 2939/3, Ist Floor, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, Pin Code - 11055. Ph: 01164691671, through its Prop./partner.

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

Complaint u/S 12/14  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh. Ajit Verma, Adv. Cl. for complainant. 

                   Sh. Anishkant Sharma,  Adv. Cl. for opposite parties no1 & 2.

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.       Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against  M/s. Ved Parkash Krishan Lal, Glass, Plywood & Sunmica etc., Partap Road Moga, District Moga, through its proprietor/partner/director/authorized signatory and another (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to pay Rs. 46,952/- on account of financial loss, Rs. 25,000/- on account of deficiency of service, Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental tension and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a law abiding citizen of the country and belongs to a middle class family and residing with his family peacefully. By saving a small part of his monthly income, the complainant purchased Wooden board 19 M.M. (4x8) total 25 pieces @ Rs. 64/- per square foot and Wooden ply 6 M.M. (8x4) total 20 pieces @ Rs. 30/- per square foot. Opposite Party No. 1 also issued bills bearing Invoice No. 24 dated 5.5.2009 for Rs. 16,872/- and Invoice No. 25 dated 6.5.2009 for Rs. 30,080/- to the complainant  after receiving cash. Some other articles were also purchased by the complainant from the OP, but the OP did not issue the bill and remained lingering on the matter on the pretext that the bill will be issued within some days, but ultimately refused to issue the bill.  In this way, the complainant purchased the wooden from the OP worth Rs. 70,000/-. At that time, the opposite parties assured the complainant that the above said wooden board and wooden ply are of imported quality and would never destroy or suffer from any problem. OP No. 2 also gave life time guarantee of the above said wooden board and ply and OP No. 2 through the addressee No. 1 and 2 also issued a Warranty Card No. 000331.  Complainant used and affixed the above said Wooden board and Wooden ply along with other material prescribed at his house.  But ultimately after passing of a very short time of about 4years, above said Wooden board and Wooden ply damaged due to the existence of white ant, which developed from the Wooden board and Wooden ply and then the complainant called some other experienced persons having skill knowledge about the Wooden and its quality and showed them the same. They told the complainant that the above said Wooden is not of good quality, rather it is of lower quality.  Complainant visited the office of OP No. 1, but they lingered on the matter and did not give any satisfactory reply and ultimately they flatly refused to compensate the complainant or to provide alternative services to him on the basis of guarantee card. Complainant again visited 3-4 times to the office of OP No.1, but of no avail.  Hence, this complaint.    

3.       Upon notice, opposite party No. 1  filed written statement  by taking certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that the alleged damaged wooden boards are not made by OP No. 2. This complaint has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention to grab a huge amount from OP No. 1. In case, it is established before this Forum that the alleged affected wooden boards are manufactured by OP No. 2 i.e. Garnet Plywood then the OP No. 2 would be liable for the same.  OP No.1  is not responsible for anything in that case.  Moreover, complainant did not apply the wooden boards as per the terms and conditions and instructions given  by OP No. 2.  Moreover, it is also admitted that the alleged wooden board were affected from white ant and OP No. 2 never gave any guarantee or warranty for the same. Not only this much, one legal notice was served upon opposite parties and they also gave reply of the same to the complainant but complainant did not intentionally mentioned this fact in the complaint. Detailed reply has already been given in the reply dated 05.11.2015 which may also be considered as part and parcel of this written statement/reply to avoid repetition; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as question of law and fact is involved in the present case. Moreover, OP No. 1 has specifically denied that the alleged affected material is manufactured by OP No. 2 i.e. Garnet Plywood Company and alleged affected material even has not been sold by OP No. 1; and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct.  On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is pleaded that the complainant has claimed a factious  and huge amount which clearly shows his bad intention and his intention to blackmail the OP No. 1. There is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1.  Moreover, OP No. 1 is only a seller. In case, this Forum comes to the conclusion that the  complainant is entitled for any compensation then OP No. 2 (manufacturing company) is liable for the same. It is admitted that legal notice dated 30.10.2015 was received by OP No. 1, but reply of the legal notice was given on 05.11.2015 and complainant has intentionally concealed this fact from this Forum.  Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.       Opposite Party No. 2 filed a separate written statement  by taking certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. Complainant alleged that he purchased vide Invoice No. 25 dated 06.05.2009, 10 pieces of Wooden Board made Garnet @ 64/- per squre foot 8x4 and 10 pieces of ply @ 30/- per spare foot and a guarantee card as per the instruction of OP No. 2 i.e. Garnet Plywood was issued to complainant. On 26.10.2015, one officer from answering OP No. 2 namely Mr. Ankit visited and inspected the house of complainant.  After seeing all the circumstances, he observed that there was foul smell of moisture and humidity in the house of complainant and the complainant had pasted the wooden board in an improper manner and not as per the directions of OP no. 2.  In fact, the carpenter had affixed the wooden sheets without giving any gap from the wall which has already been badly affected from moisture and humidity. Even, the carpenter had not affixed any plastic sheet to protect the wooden plywood from moisture.  The result of the same is natural wear and tear because of the above said improper installation and white ants took the birth and distorted the wooden board which is very natural anywhere. Moreover, the complainant has also observed that the board which has been destroyed is not of Garnet Company. Mr. Ankit also observed that the carpenter has no skill to install the same and he installed the wooden board in an improper manner. Not only this much, Mr. Ankit also asked to get sample from the destroyed wooden board and wooden ply sheets which are about 6 pieces which has been fixed with the wall and badly affected from moisture (Salab) in the house of complainant. But, the complainant flatly refused to Mr. Ankit to take any type of sample.  Actually, the complainant knew this fact that he has used number of different materials in his house in wooden work and that has been purchased from different shops.  Moreover, the complainant has also entangled OP No. 1 who has only sold the goods to the complainant otherwise OP No. 1 is not responsible for anything as the guarantee/warranty has been given by OP no.2.  The complainant has made a concocted story to grab huge money from OP No.2; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as question of law and fact is involved in the present case; and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is pleaded that the complainant has claimed a factious  and huge amount which clearly shows his bad intention and his intention to blackmail the OP No. 2. It is admitted that legal notice dated 30.10.2015 was received by OP No. 2, but reply of the legal notice was given on 06.11.2015 and complainant has intentionally concealed this fact from this Forum.  Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

5.      In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own  affidavit Ex. C-1, copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7, photographs Ex. C8 to Ex. C21 and closed the evidence.

6.      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ankit Bansal, Marketing Manager - Ex. OPs-1, affidavit of Sh. Surinder Kumar C/o Ved Parkash & Sons - Ex. OPs-2 along with copies of documents Ex. OPs-3 to Ex. OPs-5 and closed the evidence.

7.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

8.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased wooden board 19MM ( 4X8) total pieces @ Rs.64/- per square feet and wooden ply 6 MM ( 8X4) total 20 pieces @ Rs.30/- per square feet along with other articles from OP-1. The OP-1 issued bill no. 24 dated 05.05.2009 for Rs.16872/- and invoice no.25 dated 06.05.2009 for Rs.30080/-. The complainant made entire payment of the goods to the OPs but he did not issue bills for remaining articles despite the repeated requests of the complainant. Copies of the bills are Ex C-2 and C-3. These wooden boards and ply manufactured by OP-2, at the time of purchase the OPs assured to the complainant that these wooden board and ply are imported quality and it will never destroyed from any problem in future and there is life time guarantee on these products. The copy of the warranty card no.000331 is Ex C-4. The complainant affixed the above said wooden board and ply along with other material as prescribed and directed by Ops at his house but after passing about 4 years these ply board is damaged due to the existence of white ant which is developed in the wooden board and ply. On it, the complainant got it checked from experienced and skilled person, who told that the wooden board and ply are not of good quality, rather this is very inferior quality and due to its inferior quality the problem arise. The complainant visited the office of OP-1 and requested him to replace these boards but OPs linger on the matter one pretext or the other. Finally they flatly refused to compensate to complainant or to provide alternative services. Due to this illegal act and supply of inferior quality of wooden board, the complainant face huge financial loss. The complainant also served a legal notice through his advocate to respondent but all in vain. The copy of the notice is Ex C-5. The wooden board and ply supplied by OPs to complainant totally damaged and due to it the other material used by the complainant is also destroyed which is clear from the photographs Ex C-8 to C-21. All these acts of the OPs are amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice, they cheated the complainant by supplying inferior goods. Due to these acts of the Ops the complainant suffered huge financial loss, mental tension, agony and physical harassment. The complainant is entitled for the refund of price of wooden board and ply and other material used by him for affixing these boards along with compensation and litigation expenses.

9.       To controvert the arguments of the complainant, the Counsel for the OPs argued that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. He is not consumer of the Ops. The alleged damaged wooden board and ply are not made by OP-2. He filed the present complaint with a malafide intention to grab money from the respondent. The alleged wooden board are not manufactured by OP-2 and they had not given any warranty or guarantee for the same. The complainant alleged that he purchased wooden board and ply manufactured by OP-2 vide bill no.25 and OP-2 gave life time warranty and guarantee on these boards. From bill dated 06.05.2009 it is very much clear that the complainant purchased only 10 piece of wooden board and wooden ply and the warranty card is also issued only to this effect, on complaint of the complainant one officer of OP-1 namely Mr. Ankit visited and inspected the house of the complainant who observed that there is foul smell of moisture  and humidity in the house of the complainant and the complainant has pasted the wooden board in improper manner and not as per the directions of the Respondent no.2. Infact the carpenter has affixed the wooden sheets without giving any gap from the wall which has already been badly affected from moisture and humidity. The carpenter had not affixed any plastic sheet to protect the wooden plywood from moisture. The damages to the plywood is due to natural wear and tear because of the above said improper installation and white ants destroyed the wooden board which is very natural anywhere. It is also observed that the board which are destroyed is not manufactured by OP-2, the carpenter who affixed the board and no skill to install the same, the boards are used after mix with it other material. Moreover, the complainant refused to Mr. Ankit to take any sample of the damaged board. The complainant used different material in his house and purchased the same from different shops. It is only due to the mishandling and negligence of the complainant, the wooden board and ply got damaged and there is no manufacturing defect in the same. The Ops are not responsible for the loss to these wooden board and ply. The OPs duly replied the notice issued by the complainant stating the entire facts. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the OPs Moreover, the complainant wrongly dragged the OP-1 in this complaint who is only a reseller of goods, he is not manufacturer of the goods, the alleged wooden board and ply are manufactured by OP-2 and guarantee on these goods is also given by OP-2. The OP-1 has nothing to do with the guarantee given by OP-2 on these products if this Hon’ble Forum held that alleged effected woods board are manufactured by OP-2 than OP-2 would be liable for the same and OP-1 is not responsible for the same. He argued that complainant filed this false and frivolous complainant only to extract the money from the OPs and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

10.     We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased wooden board and ply from OP-1 which was manufactured by OP-2 at the time of the same the OPs gave assurance that this plywood is of good quality and gave life time guarantee from any type of damage to plywood but only after 4 years the said plywood get damaged and white ant developed in these plywood which is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the OPs. He claim compensation and price of the ply. The complainant produced the copy of the bill 06.05.2009 Ex C-2 which is issued by OP-1 vide which he purchased the alleged plywood from him. From it is clear that complainant purchased the plywood from OPs. He further produced copy of warranty card issued by OPs regarding lifetime warranty to the said plywood. The complainant also produced photographs of the damaged plywood as Ex C-8 to C-21. From the perusal of these photographs it is clear that the plywood installed in his house is badly damaged and on the sheets of plywood the name and logo of OP-2 clearly visible from which it is clear that these plywood are manufactured by OP-2. From these documents the allegations of the complainant is proved.

11.     The stand of OPs is that the complainant has not applied these wooden board and ply, as per instructions of the Ops and due to the result of the natural wear and tear and improper installation of the plywood, the white ant developed in the wooden board and ply which destroyed the wooden board and there is no manufacturing defect in these plywood but OPs failed to produce any evidence regarding the instructions for installing plywood and further failed to prove any evidence that the complainant did not applied the plywood with proper care and instructions, so this plea of the OPs is not sustainable. So, we are of the considered opinion all these acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. However, OP-1 is only reseller to sell the products manufactured by OP-2 to the general public. He has no concern with the manufacturing and quality of the plywood. Moreover, the lifetime guarantee on the products is also given by OP-2 and not by OP-1. So, only OP-2 is responsible to compensate the complainant for the loss occur to plywood which was manufactured by OP-2.

12.     In the light of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is directed to refund Rs.30080/- which are paid by complainant vide bill no. 25 dated 06.05.2009 as price of wooden board and ply along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.01.2016 till final realization. OP-2 is also burdened to pay Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by complainant and Rs.3000/- (three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Opposite party no.2 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint against OP-1 stand dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.06.2016

                         (Bupinder Kaur)         (Vinod Bala)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)

                              Member                  Member                            President