Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

153/2006

S.Viswanathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Salem Granites - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balaji

06 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 28.02.2006

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (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

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II   

CC. NO.153 /2006

TUESDAY THE 6^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

S. Viswanathan,

Old Door No.34, New No.71,

Ellaiamman Colony,

Teynampet,

Chennai 600 086.                                        .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

Salem Granites,

Rep. by its Manager,

24/1-A1 TNR Complex,

Near ATC Bus Depot,

New Bus Stand Bye Pass Road,

Salem 636 009.                                          ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. V. Balaji & another  

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. K.Ganesan     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replace the modular kitchen with accessories or to refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

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

          The complainant submit that he ordered for a Modular kitchen, Shutters and Cabinets from the opposite party.  The  complainant further state that the opposite party issued for such quotation on 30.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.86,570/- after due negotiation the opposite party reduced to Rs.80,000/-. The complainant also state that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the opposite party as advance.   On 30.9.2004 the opposite party informed the complainant that  during the first week of October 2004 Modular kitchen will be supplied.  But during the first week December 2004  after receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- the opposite party supplied the Modular kitchen and was duly erected.  Further the complainant state that the opposite party informed the complainant that one Mr.Karthick, Co-ordinator will be contacted.  He also came and verified the Modular kitchen.  He also expressed that he cannot do any rectification work and wood is beyond repairable condition.  Even after repeated requests and demands made by the complainant the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects in the Modular kitchen.   As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party state that the complaint is not maintainable since this forum is having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; because the opposite party is carrying its business at Salem the complainant’s father in law  obtained quotations on 13.7.2004 and 19.7.2004 at Salem and payment made at Salem.   Further the opposite party state that this complaint is filed after the expiry of warranty period.  Hence the prayer for replacement of Modular Kitchen and alternative prayer to refund of the amount are not maintainable.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that  the rate of Modular kitchen  is Rs.80,000/- the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of two installments i.e. Rs.40,000/- as an advance and Rs.20,000/- at the time of supplying and erection of Modular kitchen.   The complainant  not paid the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- for long time even after repeated request and demands.  Hence the opposite party lodged a complaint before the police station  on 30.5.2006 with regard to such default and the police complaint was closed.  Further the opposite party state that  the allegation that the Modular kitchen supplied by the opposite party is very poor quality and the wooden frames and shutters are in a damaged position are all nothing but figment of imagination of the complainant  invented by the complainant for the first time now in order to defeat and delay the balance amount legitimately due and payable to the opposite party in respect of the goods supplied by the opposite party to the complainant.    The allegation that the complainant contacted one Mr. Karthik of ELF and that the said Karthik came and verfified the Modular kitchen and expressed that he cannot do any rectification work and wood is beyond repairable condition are all nothing and imaginary.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the modular kitchen with accessories  or to refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for ?

 

 

5.  POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version proof affidavits and documents.    Admittedly the complainant ordered for a Modular kitchen, Shutters and Cabinets from the opposite party.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party issued  such quotation on 30.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.86,570/- after due negotiation the opposite party reduced to Rs.80,000/-  as per Ex.A3 is also admitted.  The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the opposite party as advance.   On 30.9.2004 the opposite party informed the complainant that  during the first week of October 2004 Modular kitchen will be supplied. But during the first week December 2004  after receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- the opposite party supplied the Modular kitchen and was duly erected.  The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the opposite party informed the complainant that  if any doubt arises one Mr. Karthick,          Coordinator will be contacted.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that  the Modular kitchen supplied by the opposite party is very poor quality and the wooden frames and shutters are in a damaged conditions and was informed to the opposite party through phone and the coordinator Mr. Karthick also came to the spot and verified the Modular kitchen and it cannot be rectified.   But the complainant has not produced any documents to prove such damaged condition.     Even after repeated requests made by the complainant the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects in the Modular kitchen. Hence  the complainant was constrained to file this case. But the complainant  has not taken any steps to prove the alleged damages in the Modular kitchen either by means of appointment of advocate commissioner or by production of photos or filing report through a qualified engineer. 

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that  the complaint is not maintainable since this forum is having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; because the opposite party is carrying its business at Salem, the complainant’s father in law  obtained quotation on 13.7.2004 and 19.7.2004 at Salem and payment made at Salem.  But the Modular kitchen erected at No.71, Ellaiamman Colony, Teynampet.   As per Sec.11 (2)(a)(c ) of the C.P. Act  1986 as follows:

        11 (2) “A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

1. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties where there are more than at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain or
2. Any of the opposite parties where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carriers on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides, or (carry on business or have a branch office) or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution ;  or
3.  The cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

Hence this forum  having territorial jurisdiction  to try this case.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that this complaint is filed after the expiry of warranty period.  Hence the prayer for replacement of Modular Kitchen and alternative prayer to refund of the amount is not maintainable.   But on a careful perusal of the records there is nothing about the warranty reflected in the document.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the rate of Modular kitchen  is Rs.80,000/- the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of two installments i.e. Rs.40,000/- as an advance and Rs.20,000/- at the time of supplying and erection of Modular kitchen.   The complainant deliberately not paid the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- for a long time even after repeated request and demands.  Hence the opposite party lodged a complaint before the police station  on 30.5.2006 with regard to such default.   It is admitted by the complainant that the said police complaint was closed.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not specifically stated anyone of the defects in the goods supplied and filed this case in a vague manner. As per Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 such complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that  one Mr. Karthick, coordinator  of the opposite party visited the complainant premises and duly erected Modular kitchen and found that  the damages which are not rectifiable or replaceable is absolutely false and imaginary; since the complainant  has not filed any document to prove such contention as well as no such Mr. Karthick never visited the complainant’s Modular kitchen at any point of time.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that without paying entire amount towards Modular kitchen keeping the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest filing this case and without taking steps to find out the defectiveness of the modular kitchen is not maintainable.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^thday of February 2018. 

MEMBER –I                            MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 13.7.2004 - Copy of Quotation.

Ex.A2- 30.9.2004 - Copy of Statement of Opp. party.

Ex.A3- 4.12.2004 - Copy of Statement of opp. party.

Ex.A4- 1.2.2005  - Copy of letter of complainant.

Ex.A5- 20.2.2006 - Copy of Telegraphic notice.

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  ..Nil..

MEMBER –I                            MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.