Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/305/2014

M/s.Shantha Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Umashankari - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Umamaheshwari

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Filing :  15.05.2014 

                                                                          Date of Order :  24.10.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

  @   2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

C.C. No.305/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THIS 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

 

Shantha Narayanan,

W/o. Mr. Narayanan,

1202 Laurels,

New Nos.81 & 83, Old Nos.59 & 60,

C.P. Ramasamy Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai – 600 018.                                                        .. Complainant

                                                       ..Versus..

 

1. Ms. Umashankari,

Proprietrix ‘The Destination’,

No.7C, Sunrise Avenue, EC Road,

Akkarai,

Chennai – 600 119.

 

2. Ms. Umashankari,

Sheela Castle,

No.11/6, Bishop Wallers Avenue,

CIT Colony,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

3. Strada Maestra D’ Italia 32,

Cardignano,

Treviso 31016,

Italy.                                                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant                  :  M/s. Uma Maheswari &

                                                                    others

Counsel for the Opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/S. P.S. Ratnamani &           

                                                                   another

Counsel for the 3rd Opposite party       :  Exparte

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant with 24% interest from the date of receipt till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for suffering and mental agony with cost of Rs.50,000/-to the complainant.

1.    The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

       The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party is carrying on a business of fixing kitchen and other interiors to the houses and offices.   Initially, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did the work of installing the modular kitchen and wardrobes to the complainant’s new house at Bawa Road, Alwarpet.  Hence the complainant requested the opposite parties 1 & 2 to install such top quality cupboards, wardrobes etc for the 2 bedrooms in the complainant’s other house at C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 also furnished the details of drawers for the wooden cabinets to be installed in the 2 bedrooms in her residence situated at “LAURELS”, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai.  Further the complainant submits that the opposite parties 1 & 2 appraised the complainant that the materials to be used in the work is of an excellent quality and is to be imported from Itlay.  After negotiations, the final price of such work is arrived as Rs.1,75,000/- out of which, the complainant paid a sum  of Rs.1,25,000/- through a cheque drawn in favour of Trans spaces as directed by the opposite parties 1 & 2.  After payment, the opposite parties 1 & 2 informed that the complainant shall place the order with the 3^rd opposite party as per the specification required to the complainant directly at her home.   Further the complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party is also the Proprietrix of the concern Trans spaces.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 informed the complainant whether the goods would be directly delivered by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant’s house; at the end of November 2012.  The goods delivered to the complainant’s house as per the instruction of the opposite parties 1 & 2 are in a damaged condition.  Immediately, the complainant informed the same to the opposite parties 1 & 2.   The complainant further submits that the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not taken any steps to open the package and replace the damaged article.  The quality of pre-casted wooden cabinets installed in the complainant’s house was of inferior and sub-standard.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 did not take any step to fix the other cabinets but claimed the balance payment from the complainant.   Only after contacting through the Architect, the opposite parties 1 & 2 responded to the complainant’s request and sent emails  dated:18.12.2012 & 29.01.2013  stating that due to Christmas vacation, the complainant was not able to contact 3^rd opposite party to replace the damaged goods.   In January 2013, the opposite parties 1 & 2 sent carpenters to fix the five wooden drawers.  But the carpenter told that without the other 2 cabinets which are damaged, the 5 cabinets cannot be fixed by the opposite parties.  The complainant repeatedly insisted the opposite parties to take back all the pieces from her house since they are of inferior quality. The complainant sent legal notice dated:01.03.2014 to the opposite parties.  Since the opposite parties has not complied to the request of replacement of the damaged drawers and replacement of entire goods which are substandard and low quality, the complainant filed this case.  

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party which is adopted by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

     The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant placed an order for Modular Kitchen/Wardrobes and set of Draws.  Accordingly, after negotiation the rate was fixed as Rs.1,75,000/-.  The seven cabinets were to be imported from the 3^rd opposite party a manufacturers of furniture, who renowned worldwide, whose products are of good quality.  The opposite parities placed an order for such imported quality of materials from Italy.  An order was placed by Trans Spaces with the 3^rd opposite party.  The consignment was shipped from Italy and consigned to Trans Spaces, at Chennai in November 2012.   Further the opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the 2 drawers imported are in a damaged condition.  It cannot be changed because it is imported from Italy.  The damaged pieces can be repaired or replaced with similar items imported from Italy alone.   Further the opposite parties state that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-.  The complainant has kept pending payment of Rs.50,000/-.    The 2^nd opposite party is still an unpaid vendor entitled to all rights under the Sale of Goods Act as against the complainant for goods sold and delivered.  The complainant had no intention to pay or permit the opposite party to replace the damaged cabinets.  The opposite party endeavour to impress upon the complainant that it is impracticable to refund all the amounts paid by her without deduction of customs duty and taxes already suffered by the consignment and that the best alternate was to arrange for a replacement with the manufacturer, the 3^rd opposite party was not acceptable to the complainant.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and is adopted by the 1^st opposite party and document Ex.B1 is filed and marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,25,000/- paid towards fixing kitchen wardrobes and other interiors as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The 3^rd opposite party remained Exparte.   The 2^nd opposite party filed his written version which was adopted by 1^st opposite party.   Both parties filed their written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the 1^st opposite party is carrying on a business of fixing kitchen and other interiors to the houses and offices.   Initially, the opposite parties 1 & 2  did the work of installing the modular kitchen and wardrobes to the complainant’s new house at Bawa Road, Alwarpet.  Hence the complainant requested the opposite parties 1 & 2 to install such top quality cupboards, wardrobes etc for the 2 bedrooms in the complainant’s other house at C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 also furnished  the details of drawing for the wooden cabinets to be installed in the 2 bedrooms.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 & 2 appraised the complainant that the materials to be used in the work is of an excellent quality and is to be imported from Itlay.  After negotiations, the final price of such work is arrived as Rs.1,75,000/- out of which, the complainant paid a sum  of Rs.1,25,000/- through a cheque drawn in favour of Trans spaces as directed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 is admitted.  After payment, the opposite parties 1 & 2 informed that   the complainant placed the order with the 3^rd opposite party as per the specification required for the complainant’s house.   

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is also the Proprietrix of the concern Trans spaces.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 informed the complainant whether the goods would be directly delivered by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant’s house.  At the end of November 2012, the goods delivered to the complainant’s house as per the instruction of the opposite parties 1 & 2 were in a damaged condition.  Immediately, the complainant informed the same to the opposite parties 1 & 2.  But the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not taken any steps to open the package and replace the damaged article.  The quality of pre-casted wooden cabinets installed in the complainant’s house was of inferior and sub-standard.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 did not take any steps to fix the other cabinets but claimed the balance payment from the complainant.   Only after contacting through the Architect, the opposite parties 1 & 2 responded to the complainant’s request and sent emails as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3  stating that due to Christmas vacation, the complainant was not able to contact 3^rd opposite party to replace the damaged goods.   In January 2013, the opposite parties 1 & 2 sent carpenters to fix the five wooden drawers.  But the carpenter told that without the other 2 cabinets which are damaged, the 5 cabinets cannot be fixed which is admitted by the opposite parties.  The complainant repeatedly insisted the opposite parties to take back all the pieces from her house since they are of inferior quality. The complainant sent legal notice dated:01.03.2014 vide Ex.A4 to the opposite parties also.  Since the opposite parties has not complied to the request of replacement of the damaged drawers and replacement of entire goods which are substandard and low quality, the complainant was constrained to file this case.   The complainant has not filed any document to prove that all the materials supplied by the opposite parties 1 & 2 are of low quality and substandard.  Equally, the complainant has not taken any step to find out the expert opinion also.   But admittedly the two drawers are in a damaged condition.

7.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the complainant placed an order for Modular Kitchen / Wardrobes and set of Draws.  Accordingly, after negotiation the rate as fixed Rs.1,75,000/-.  The opposite parities placed order for such imported quality of materials from Italy.  The invoice receipt and delivery note dated:06.12.2012 is marked as Ex.B1 issued by Trans Spaces.  The complainant wantonly and deliberately

 

not added Trans Spaces as a party.  But the complainant specifically pleaded that M/s. Umashankari is the Proprietrix for the Trans Spaces also is not denied by the opposite parties.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the 2 drawers imported are in a damaged condition.  It cannot be changed because it is imported from Italy.  The damaged pieces can be repaired or replaced with similar items imported from Italy alone.  In this case, the opposite parties has not placed any further order for import.  The Architect and the carpenters clearly explained that without the 2 damaged drawers, all the 5 drawers cannot be fixed.  Both parties has not filed any document to prove the cost of drawers.  Equally, there is no document filed in this Forum to prove what are the items agreed for.  It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-.   The complainant has kept pending payment of Rs.50,000/-.  Both parties has not taken any steps to find out the cost of drawers.  Further the contention of the complainant is that since 2 units are damaged, it is not possible to fix other 5 cabinets is acceptable.  The opposite parties also has not taken any steps for fixing all the seven units in proper condition proves the deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall replace the two damaged wooden cabinets with a new one thereby, complete the work of fixing the cabinets on payment of the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-  by the complainant failing which, the opposite parties shall refund the cost of cabinets to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 15.05.2014 to till  the date of  this order and to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the two damaged wooden cabinets with a new one and thereby, complete the work of fixing the cabinets on payment of the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) by the complainant failing which, the opposite parties shall refund  the cost of cabinets to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint  i.e. 15.05.2014 to till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of October 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	04.07.2012	Copy of e-mail from the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A2	18.12.2012	Copy of e-mail from the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A3	29.01.2013	Copy of e-mail from the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A4	01.03.2013	Copy of legal notice to both opposite parties
Ex.A5		Copy of acknowledgement card from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	20.05.2013	Copy of letter & receipt to post office seeking proof of service for the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A7	02.07.2013	Copy of proof of service from post office for notice sent to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A8		Copy of bank statement
Ex.A9	14.07.2014	Copy of cheque Transactions  Inquiry of the complainant

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  (Proof Affidavit is adopted by 1^st opposite party)

Ex.B1

06.12.2012

Copy of delivery note issued by Trans Spaces

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT