Present complaint under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Dr.Rupinder Kapur against opposite parties i.e. Rubberwood of india Pvt. Ltd. , Royco Industries, Prabhakar Sanitarywares & Cement Stockists, G.T. Road, Opposite Satwant Filling station Phagwara seeking direction against them for replacement of defective doors and boards and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint lie in narrow compass. Opposite party No.1 is a Company manufacturing and selling Rubtik wooden doors and rubber wood panel boards through its authorised agent throughout India with the said office at Muttabalam P.O. Kottyam (Kerala) having one of its dealer Royco Industries Basti Nau, Jalandhar opposite party No.2 and its sub dealer Prabhakar Sanitarywares, Chachoki, Phagwara opposite party No.3. with the quality of rubber wood and further guaranteed against the boner attack, failure of single joints and edge glued joints on the rubberwood used. He purchased sixteen finished doors and ten 35mm boards manufactured by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.3 sub agent of opposite party No.2 for construction of his house at Phagwara amounting to Rs.1,20,699/-. It is further alleged that products of opposite party No.1 had shrunk and banded. In some cases, the wood had cracked and even the glued finger joints have come off and have become uneven. The goods turned out to be of inferior quality and are defective. Some of the doors purchased by him had shrunk while one door of the bathroom was expanded. He approached opposite parties No.2 and 3 and informed them about defective nature of rubberwood and further wrote number of letters dated 25/4/2005, dated 3.6.2995 dated 27.10.2005 to opposite party No.1 about defect in the products of the Company and the Company deputed its Executive Mr.Anil who found his complaint to be valid and assured for quick action but later on put off on one pretext or the other..Thus he suffered financial loss to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of price of the goods and also wages of the carpenter incurred by him. He requested opposite parties many a times for replacement of wooden goods and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.1 appeared and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. The relationship of the dealer opposite party No.2 with the Company is not disputed but opposite party No.3 is not sub dealer of complainant but is sub dealer of opposite party No.2. It is denied that any inducement was made by the Company or its officials to the complainant to buy the goods of the opposite party. The factum of purchase of rubber wood material through opposite parties No.2 and 3 by the complainant is not disputed. However, opposite party No.1 has fastened blame upon the complainant squarely for the defects in the wooden goods on account of violation of all traditional carpentry practices and no protective painting/polishing was done and wooden planks were used totally in violation of conventional carpentry practices. It is denied that its Executive Mr.Anil R. Pillai found his complaint valid. In fact his report shows that problems were due to the wrong applications of the products. Nevertheless Company has offered partial replacement to the complainant as a sign of business promotion measure. It is further denied that complainant suffered monetary loss to the extent of Rs.2,50000/- on account of alleged defective or substandard wooden goods so as to entitle him for replacement thereof or for any monetary compensation.<br /> 4. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 also appeared and controverted allegations on the same defence pleas as raised by opposite party No.1 and resisted his claim. It is further pleaded that complainant had not installed the door properly and cut the sheets into small pieces which is against the normal carpentry practice If any defect has crept in it, it was due to fault of the complainant himself. No protective painting/polishing was done but the wooden planks were used totally in violation of traditional carpentry practice. Opposite party Company is still ready for partial replacement of the alleged defective rubber wood products, if any under the promotional scheme. It is denied that complainant has suffered any monetary loss on account of alleged substandard material supplied by the opposite party Company so as to justify his claim.<br /> 5. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits Ex.A1 to A4 and documents A4 to A17.<br /> 6. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit Ex.R and documents Ex.R2 to R5.<br /> 7. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant is that opposite parties being manufacturer and dealer are guilty of supplying defective rubber wood material and alo deficiency in its service for which he is entitled to not only replacement of defective rubber wood goods or price thereof but also damages on account of mental agony and physical harassment. On the other hand counter defence plea taken up by the opposite parties is that complainant was himself at fault as he violated traditional carpentry practice while fixing the finished doors and boards and also no protective painting/polishing was done on the wooden material, therefore, he is not entitled to the replacement of wooden material much less to speak of its price. Nevertheless, patial replacement of alleged defective wooden material was offered to the complainant as a gesture of positive business promotion measure.<br /> 8. We have considered the rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find a good deal of merit in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. The factum of purchase of sixteen finished doors and ten 35mm boards manufactured by opposite party NO.1 and sale through opposite party NO.3 sub dealer of opposite party No.2 for sale price of Rs.1,20,699/- in November/December 2004 is not disputed in the written statements of opposite parties No.1 to 3. Complainant further alleged that soon after installation of products of opposite party No.1 had shrunk and bended. The wood had cracked and even the glued finger joints have come off and have become uneven. The goods turned out to be of inferior quality and were defective. Some of the doors have shrunk while one door of the bathroom had expended which allegation has been denied by the opposite parties and counter urged about violation of all traditional carpentry practices. No protective painting/polishing was done and and wooden planks were used totally in violation of conventional carpentry practices by the complainant. It is pleaded in para-5 of the written statement that Sh.A.R .Pillai deputed to inspect the wooden material and its report showed that problems were due to wrong application of products. Nevertheless Company advised opposite party No.2 to give partial replacement of the products under the promotional scheme.<br /> 9. To substantiate the allegation of defective wooden doors and boards, complainant reiterated about allegations vuide affidavit A3 and intimated about his grievances and redressal thereof to the opposite party No.1 through letters Ex.A5, A4,A6, A7, A9 and Ex.A10 alongwith certificate of Engineer/Architect Ex.A11 with the photographs Ex.A12 and A13, postal receipt Ex.A14 and notice dated 16/1/06 Ex.A15 and also report of Local Commissioner Ex.A17. Two carpenters namely Rashpal Singh and Sarabjit Singh unanimously deposed to the facts in their respective affidavits that they had done carpentry work at the house of the complainant and installed and installed finished doors and 35mm boards manufactured by opposite party No.1 for the carpentry work. They inspected the doors and other fixtures prepared from the products of opposite party No.1. The wood was shrunk and had bended and in some places the wood had cracked and had become uneven. Cracks and joints were visible in the photographs. The fixtures made from other wood were in perfect condition.. They further explained that if there is any defect in the carpentry work , the same would be visible at the outset and and would not make the wood shrunk or bend or the joints will come out . The doors were already finished and same were only affixed by them. Further Anil Associates Engineer & Architect also examined the carpentry work and rubber wood used in the windows and doors in the house of the complainant and noticed that rubberwood used in factory made doors and windows made by same rubber wood boards have shrunk unreasonably and markedly at most of the places. It was further noticed that finger joints in the rubber wood panels and doors have become loose and deformed at many places. On the contrary the carpentry work done in the furniture and other wooden fixtures in the house was found to be of highest quality. Hence this kind of rubberwood used in the windows and doors in the house was not of that high quality as asserted by the Company and its dealer and is liable to early shrinkage and loosening of finger joints..<br /> 10. We have also gone through the report of Local Commissioner Sh.Anuj Anand Advocate who inspected the wooden material used in the house of the complainant on 28/9/07 in the presence of both the parties and ha given details of defective material on the ground floor, kitchen, bedroom and first floor. Its report Ex,.A17 indicates that there was slight shrinkage at the joints of main door and the finger joints were also visible slightly and shrikage was slightly at the joints of second door and further gap at the bottom of this door which was filled by affixing another wooden plank . Gaps were also visible at the door of bathroom which had become loose and on the bottom of the door of the kitchen, gap had enlarged due to shrinkage and a wooden plank had to be fitted in order to fill the gap. Windows had become disfigured joints and swollen and figure joints on the windows were also coming out making the appearance very unattractive. Figure joints were also visible on all the doors. The figure joints were also coming out very progressively and gap at the entrance door was also clearly visible.<br /> 11. The close analysis of evidence of carpenters, Architect and Local Commissioner's report clearly establish that in much of the wooden material i.e. doors and boards used in th construction of the house of the complainant were of inferior quality as they have shrunk unreasonably and figure joints became loose and deformed. On the other hand opposite parties No.1 and 2 had not adduced any evidence much less to speak of even certificate of A.R.Pillai Executive of opposite party No.1 to report wherein he inspected the wooden material used in the house of the complainant and observed that problems were due to wrong application of the products by the carpenters . On the other hand we find partial admission of defects albeit partial in the products of opposite party Company by its letter Ex.R9 dated 9/11/05 addressed to the complainant that all permissible claims raised by M/s Royco Industries , Jalandhar opposite party No.2 from whom he had purchased their products have been passed and was requested to contact their distributor for replacement of doors purchased. This letter admits justification in the partial permissible claim of the complainant but it has failed to adduce any expert evidence to controvert the consistent evidence of the complainant about defects in the materials.. No doubt, opposite party No.3 filed affidavit to the effect that goods supplied to the complainant do not have manufacturing defect and it was intimated to the complainant that low shrinkage is possible. Further the Company has offered to replace the doors which are not repairable. The sheets were not used and these were cut into pieces violating the traditional carpentry practices. He further admits that Company is ready for replacement though complainant is adamant . He has also not applied any polish or paint resulting damage due to exposure to rains.. No doubt certain salient features of the rubber wood and representation of its better quality has been highlighted in Ex.R2 to R5 wherein certain precautionary measures were also given to the consumer for usage of the wooden materials. Be that as it may, as already observed, Manufacturer Company opposite party No.1 has admitted partial permissible claim raised by the complainant about inherent manufacturing defects in the rubber wood material though camouflaged as under promotional scheme and the same has also been proved by consistent evidence by way of affidavits of carpenters, Architect and also Local Commissioner in his report.<br /> 12. Apropos grant of relief to the complainant as claim for replacement of goods or sum of Rs.1,20,699/- as price of the goods alongwith Rs.75000/- for labour charges of carpenters and damages for deficiency in its service , he has not been specific about numbe of defective finished rubber wood doors out of sixteen doors and out of ten 35mm boards and also about labour charges of the carpenters on the carpentry works. On the other hand opposite parties have also not been specific about defective wooden material supplied to the complainant. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case holding opposite parties guilty of supplying of defective wooden materials, we partly allow the complaint to the extent of 70% of the value of wooden materials of Rs.1,20,699/- and further Rs.30,000/- as labour charges with further damages and costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the opposite parties within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced    ( Surinder Mittal )    ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 18.3.2008     Member      President.