SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act2019, seeking to get an order directing the opposite party to repair the room and replace the furniture and fittings with new superior quality product as per the order together with Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, pain and sufferings caused to the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

            Brief facts of the complaint are that OP who is contractor approached her for doing interiors and modification of her daughter’s bedroom (maniyara).  OP had promised her that he will do the interiors of the room with good quality products and also within the specified time.  Accordingly, the OP gave quotation to the complainant for the work assigned, totally an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- and assured that the furniture and fittings will have 10 years guarantee and also promised that the work will be completed within 3 weeks.  At the time of entrusting the work the complainant gave the OP an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and after doing some work he  also gave Rs.1,75,000/- at the request of the OP.  OP took more than one month to complete the entire work which caused great tension and mental agony in the mind of complainant and relatives.  After completion of the entire work  the OP told that the incurred more expenses and the total cost was 3,25,000/-.  Accordingly the complainant gave the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- to the OP.  Further submitted that within few months after the completion of the Maniyara work done by OP, the furniture got damaged and paints started peeling.  According to complainant OP had done the Maniyara by using cheap quality product.  Further alleged that thought he damage was informed to the OP, he did not turn back. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to OP on 24/02/2021 which was received by the OP and a reply was sent stating false and unbelievable fact.  Hence the complaint.

            After receiving notice, OP entered appearance and contest the case through counsel.  OP filed written version stating that the complainant contacted the OP for the proposed work.  The original quotation was for Rs.3,10,000/- and additional sum of Rs.15,000/- as agreed by the complainant is also charged for wooden flooring as an extra work which is not in quotation.  One week delay was caused in commencing the work only because the complainant didn’t make advance payment.  This OP submit that the raw materials used for the work was of high quality than agreed in quotation and at the time of work OP noticed the construction work of a bath room was going  near the bed room.  Since there is all possibility for leakage from the bath room, OP specifically requested the complainant to make proper filling of the gaps.  OP contended that when complainant contacted the OP for the damage, OP and another pesticide expert visited complainant’s house and they realize that the bathroom was not properly filled up and there was sever leakage from bathroom to the wall of bed room.  Further complainant is not providing any warranty for raw material as stated in the complaint.  The complainant is at liberty to contact the manufacturer of wooden raw materials for her grievances.  However the chance for redressal from the manufacture company is very low as the damage was caused due to leakage of water from bathroom and termite attack.  It is not correct to say that his OP had used low quality materials for the interiors and furniture.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this OP.  Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

            Complainant has filed chief-affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A7.  During the pendency of this case complainant has taken steps to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the premises and to file report.  Advocate commissioner after giving due notices to the both parties inspected the premises and filed report.  After that the OP had taken steps to appoint pesticide expert for preparing report.  As per that   Mr. Jayesh, pest control expert is appointed as expert commissioner to inspect the Maniyara of the complainant’s daughter and to file report about the present lie and conditions.  As per the direction, the expert commissioner after given notices to the parties conducted inspection and filed report.  The reports are marked as Ext.C1 series on the side of OP, OP has not given oral evidence.  Two documents submitted and were marked as Ext.B1, B2 series.  One witness the employee of the furniture shop from where OP has purchased the plywood for the work was examined as Dw1.

            After that the learned counsels of both parties made arguments.

            The complainant’s allegation is that within few months after the completion of the Maniyara work done by OP, the furniture got damaged and paints started peeling.  According to complainant OP had done the Maniyara by using cheap quality product.  Further alleged that though the damage was informed to the OP, he did not turn back.

On the other hand OP contended that the raw materials used for the work was of high quality than agreed in quotation and at the time of work OP noticed the construction work of a bath room was going  near the bed room.  Since there is all possibility for leakage from the bath room, OP specifically requested the complainant to make proper filling of the gaps.  OP contended that when complainant contacted the OP for the damage, OP and another pesticide expert visited complainant’s house and they realize that the bathroom was not properly filled up and there was sever leakage from bathroom to the wall of bed room.  According to OP the damage was caused due to leakage of water from bathroom and termite attack.  OP denied the allegation of the complainant that he had used low quality materials for the interiors and furniture.

            The Advocate Commissioner Sajith Kumar  A K inspected the site and filed a report with photos.  Advocate commissioner observed that the appearance of Maniyara is very much shabby and ugly on the interior decoration.  Further, stated that a carpenter brought by the complainant has also opined that the damages seen in the Maniyara were happened due to the poor quality of the materials used and workmanship.   Further, stated that he has noticed some leakages outside the room.  The commissioner opined that in his observations, the seepage of water through the wall is not a reason since same kind of damage had seen on the other side of the wall where no seepage of water.  The presence of termite inside the bath room door frame noticed.  The photos submitted by the commissioner also shows damages happened in the interior work of the Maniyara.

            The pest control expert also filed a report as per the direction of this commission.  In the said report, it is stated that he had inspected the premises with the plywood expert.  The expert has observed that the building in dispute is situated in the wet landed area.  The nearby places are also wetland.  It is also stated that the plywood shows algae termites on the window doors.  Further stated that door frames and windows of the nearby rooms are also were damaged due to the presence of water contents.  The expert opined that the percentage of moister content in the subject building is of 44%.  The final opinion of the expert is that the damage noticed by him in the present premises are of similar type were the moister in the floor and termite were not controlled.  In such building the furniture made with any good quality plywood or wood would become damage.

            From the observation of the Advocate commissioner as well as expert commissioner, it is evident that the interior work made by the Opposite party became damaged and affected termites.  As per the expert report the quality of the material used for making the furniture is immaterial.  In this situation, the person who has taken over the work, should have considered the geographical factors of the locality.  Here from the evidence it is revealed that the OP has taken over the work and done that work carelessly without giving any importance to the quantum of money spent by the complainant and the traditional importance of the work entrusted to him.  Hence we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP.  Hence complainant is entitled to get relief from the OP.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no use to order to repair the room and replace the furniture and fittings in this belated time.  So we direct Opposite party to pay Rs.3,25,000/- with interest @ 4% per annum from 24/02/2021 the date of sending lawyer notice till realization.  Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant.  Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the order.  Failing which the awarded amount carries interest @ 9% per annum from 24/02/2021 till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts

A1-Quotation dated 09/02/2018

A2-Complaint to City Police Kannur dated 09/02/2021

A3-Receipt issued by City Police Kannur dated 13/02/2021

A4-Copy of lawyer notice

A5- Postal receipt

A6- Acknowledgment card

A7- Photos(8 in  Nos.)

C1- Expert reports

Pw1-Complainant

Dw1-Muhammed Shareef-Witness of OP

      Sd/                                                                               Sd/                                                            Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar