DOF.04.11.2010

DOO.22.08.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:   President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy             :  Member

Dated this, the 22^nd  day of  August   2011

CC.280/2010

V.Ratnakumari,

‘Vrindavan’

(Near)Manekkara Vidyavilasini School,

Panniyannur.P.O.

Chokli(Via)

(Rep.by Adv. C.P.Jayan)                                      Complainant

Murali,

Manager,

‘DECORE CREATIONS’

 Ist floor,Ayisha Plaza,

Opp.Liberty Paradize,

A.V.K.Nair Road,

Thalasseri 670 101.                                           Opposite parties   

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return `95,000 with interest along with a compensation of `50,000 and also for a direction to opposite party for removing the interior room fittings done by opposite party.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that she had entrusted the opposite party for interior decoration of the kitchen, sitting room bedroom, dining room and Pooja room as per a quotation dt.15.5.09. Accordingly the complainant has placed an order for doing the work in Bedroom, dining room and Pooja room on 21.5.09. The opposite party demanded `35000 for bed room, `16,000 for Pooja room and `43,000 for dining room. Out of these `94,000 the complainant had given `60,000 on 21.5.09 and the opposite party had issued a receipt for the same. The opposite party assured that they will deliver the materials within30 days from the date of order. But the opposite party had not delivered the same even after the expiry of the same. Even though the complainant had contacted the opposite party several time, the opposite party informed the complainant that the delay was occurred due to non-availability of woods having ISI mark. Later on he had done the interior work of bed room and left behind the work of Pooja room and dining room. At last on 2009 December 10 the opposite party contacted the complainant after the repeated demand and he demanded `15,000 more and the complainant had given the same. Later he had done the interior work of pooja room and dining room. But at the time of work itself the complainant informed the opposite party about the inferior quality of materials used. But opposite party represented to the complainant that the materials used are having ISO mark. At the time of doing the work the opposite party had made so many holes and tiles were broken due to the work of the opposite party. But the opposite party demands charge for closing these holes. At the time of work itself the complainant noticed some white dust oozing from the wood used for work. But the opposite party represented that it will be vanished after polishing. On 15.12.09, the opposite party received `20,000 from the complainant. Later on there appeared while patches on the furniture and noticed large quantity of white dust. The opposite party instructed the complainant to polish again and will be Okayed after polishing. But later on the complainant came to know that the opposite party had done the work using substandard and wet wooden materials and had done polish in order to hide the truth. The furniture in the bed room and pooja room became decayed and useless. This was caused due to the use of law quality material and due to the deficient service of opposite party. Because of this the complainant had caused financial, mental and physical hardship and hence the complainant is entitled to get `50000 as compensation and also to get refund the amount received by opposite party. Hence the complaint.

          The opposite party was absent, even though he has received the notice issued by the Forum. Later on he was appeared but due to continuous absence subsequently, he was called absent and set exparte.

          The main points to be decided are whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and whether he is entitled to any relief.

          The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A6 and C1.

                   The complainant’s case is that the opposite party had done the interior work using substandard materials and all of the materials used are decayed and hence he had sustained physical, mental as well as financial loss. In order to prove his case he had filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents like sub-quotations, receipt, copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt and reply issued by opposite party’s counsel.Ext.A4 is the reply notice issued by opposite party and he admits that he had handed over a quotation for the work and completed the work and the accounts were settled. This shows that the complainant had entrusted the work mentioned in the complaint and the opposite party had completed the work. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by opposite party for a total amount of `95,000 which was received by him on 21.5.09, 10.12.09 and 15.12.09. This shows that he has received `95,000 towards the interior works done by him. In Ext.A4 notice the opposite party contended that the false allegation are made in order to degrade the reputation and acted as a spade of his business rivals. But the complainant had taken out a commission and he had filed his report which was marked as Ext.C1. He reported that he was inspected the house on 22.7.11 at 2.30 p.m in the presence of opposite party and his workers. He reported that the opposite party has used inferior quality materials and charged higher rate. He reported that “ Câo-cn-bÀ U¡-td-j³ hÀ¡n-\p-]-tbm-Kn-¨n-«p-f-f-F-Ãm-km-[-\-§-fpT hfsc KpW-\n-e-hm-cT Ipd-ª-Xm-Wv.-Kp-W-\n-e-hm-cT Ipdª alm-K-Wn-bp-sS-a-c-hpT t\mhm ]m³ F¶-jo-äpT IqSn-bmWv ^À®n-¨-dp-IÄ \nÀ½n-¨n-«p-f-f-Xp. Dt±-iT 2500 cq]-bpsS alm-K-Wn-bp-sS-aq-s¸-¯n-bn-«n-Ãm¯ sNdnb c­v ac-§Ä D]-tbm-Kn-¨mWv ]Wn-sN-bvXXv.Cu ac-§Ä Hcp-X-c-¯n-epT ac-¸-Wn-IÄ¡v D]-tbm-Kn-¨p-Iq-Sm. Cu ac-§Ä sIm­v ^ÀWn-¨À ]Wn-IÄ sNbvXm Hs¡ Iodn-bpT s]mSn-ªpT hfsc thK-¯n  \i-n-¡p-I-b-pT sN¿p¶p. CXmWv Cu ho«ne  ^ÀWn-¨-dn\p kT-`-hn-¨-Xp. IqSmsX acT \Ã-h-®T DW-§m³ hn«n-Ã. ]¨ ac-amWv D]-tbm-Kn-¨-Xp. ]Wn-sb-Sp-¯-h-cpT KpW-an-Ãm-¯-h-cm-Wv.”. This statement of the commissioner shows that both the material used and the work done were substandard qualities. The commissioner very specifically detailed about the deficient work done by opposite party in each room separately. From the report of the commissioner it is very clear that the work done by the opposite party and the materials used are very law quality and it cannot be used further and it has to be removed. From the available evidence on record it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complainant had suffered so much of mental, physical hardship to which the opposite party has to compensate the complainant since the entire materials used are of substandard quality. It has to be replaced. The opposite party has to refund `95000 received by him towards the value of the work and materials. It is evident from the commission report that the fittings done by the opposite party has to be removed for which the opposite party has to give `5000 to the complainant as the cost of removing the same. It is a fact that the complainant had suffered so much of loss for which we assess `8000 as compensation. The opposite party is also liable to give `2000 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant and passed order accordingly.      

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund  `95,000 (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) received by him  from the complainant  with `8000 (Rupees Eight Thousand only) as  compensation, `5000(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of  removing fittings and  `2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                             Sd/-                    Sd/-                   Sd/-     

                         President                  Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1. Quotation dt.15.5.09 issued by OP

A2.  Receipt dt.15.12.09 issued by OP

A3.  Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A4.  Reply notice dt.17.8.10 issued by OP

A5. &  A6. Postal receipt and AD cards

 Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Exhibits for the court

C1.Commission report

Witness examined for either side: Nil                                              

                           /forwarded by order/

                   Senior Superintendent

Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum, Kannur.