By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

          This is a complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant on 19.12.2018  purchased 5  plates of 3X1 and  6 legs and other accessories  costing Rs.2,500/-   from the Opposite Party,  for the purpose of making a rack for keeping his books.  At the time of its purchase,  the Opposite Party had told  the Complainant that the rack would be got assembled using  the parts with the help of his labourers.  But, inspite   of repeated  demands,  as the Opposite Party had not done it,  the Complainant with the assistance of a friend,  assembled the rack, using spanner and  placed his books on it.  But due to the defects in quality of the components,  the rack was not standing in proper position which was informed  to the  Opposite Party at the shop, but he did not take any steps to cure the defects  of the rack.  In the meantime,   on 25.04.2019,  the rack fell down on the bottles,  photos etc  which were kept on the nearby  robbing,  causing financial loss to the Complainant.  On informing this matter to the labourers of the Opposite Party,  they told that “Owner is out of station and on his arrival the rack would be replaced and they directed the Complainant to bring  photos of the damaged rack.  But on  approaching the Opposite Party with the photos on 14.06.2019,  the workers of the Opposite Party threatened  the Complainant.  Subsequently on 17.06.2019,  the Complainant sent a lawyer’s  notice to the Opposite Party.  After receiving the notice,  by the Opposite Party, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party on 19.06.2019  and 21.06.2019,  over phone but the Opposite Party continued his threatening.  The Opposite Party has failed to cure the defects of the rack.  Hence this complaint with  the following prayers:-

1. To direct the Opposite Party to take back the rack and refund the  price of it amounting to Rs.2,500/-  together with interest at the rate of 12%.
2. To direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
3. To direct the Opposite Party to pay cost of this complaint and
4. To grand such other relief that the Commission deems fit to grand.

3. The  Complaint was registered  and notice was served on the Opposite

Party for appearance.  The Opposite Party entered  appearance and filed version.

          4. Contents of version in brief:-  The Complainant had purchased the five numbers of plates and legs and the related accessories.  But,  the Opposite Party had not agreed to assemble the  rack at the Complainant’s house.  The Complainant had purchased the accessories at a lower price after repeated bargaining and he  had agreed to assemble it himself.  The Opposite Party would charge at the rate of Rs.40/- per plate and as the Complainant was not willing to pay this amount,  he fitted the rack himself.  The damage if any caused was due to the defective fitting and placing of materials with excessive weight on the rack.  The Opposite Party has not threatened the  Complainant.  The Opposite Party is conducting his business for the last 38 years and in the meantime no  complaint has been raised against him.  The Complainant has no right to get any relief as prayed in the complaint.  All other allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Party and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

          5. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 and C1 were marked from his side.  He was examined as PW1.  Ext.A1 is the  bill of Rs.2,500/-  issued by the  Opposite Party;  Ext.A2 (a) is the lawyer’s notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party;  Ext.A2(b) is the postal receipt and Ext.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card and  Ext.C1 is the  Commission Report.  The Opposite Party had  no evidence and hence the complaint was finally heard  on 27.10.2022.

          6. Commission perused the documents and after considering the complaint, version, affidavit,  documents Marked and the arguments of the both the parties on hearing,  the following points are raised for consideration.

1.  Whether there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite party?
2.  If so whether the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation?
3. If So whether the Opposite party is liable to pay cost of this complaint?

7. Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact   that   the  accessories   for   making   the

rack had been purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite party.  The allegation of the Complainant is that at the time of purchase,  though the Opposite party had promised to give the rack assembled  in the house of the Complainant  through the labourers of the Opposite party  he did not do so and therefore,  the complainant himself  was forced to assemble the rack with the assistance of a  friend and placed his books on the rack.  But due to the poor qualities of the plates and the unevenness of the legs,   the rack fell down and damaged his household utensils kept adjacent to the rack and caused financial loss to the Complainant for which the Opposite Party is responsible and so the Complainant claims refund of the bill amount,  compensation and cost.  On the other hand,  the contention of the Opposite Party is that he had not promised the  Complainant to assemble the rack in the house of the Complainant, as told by the Complainant.   According to the Opposite  Party,  the Complainant had to pay a fitting  charge at the rate of Rs.40/-  per plate but to avoid such  payments he took away the accessories telling that he  himself would assemble the rack.  The Opposite  Party also contented that the defects in the rack were caused not because of the poor quality of the accessories he sold,  but because of the lack of expertise of the Complainant in assembling the rack for which the Opposite Party is not responsible.  This Commission had appointed an  Advocate Commission on application  of the Complainant,  for submitting  report after inspection of the facts regarding the rack. 

8. The  Commission Report  was submitted and it stated that:-

    1.  The quality of the material of the said rack was very poor.

2. The legs of the rack were of  different length.
3. Even if the rack was kept out of rain and sun,  there could  see rust in major  portion of the rack.
4. Screws of the rack were joined in the correct order etc.
5. The Commission also produced some photos which were suggested to be a part of the report.

9. Objections to Commission Report were filed by the Opposite Parties .  The

major objections of the Opposite Party against the Commission  Report  are :-

1.  In paragraph No.3 of the report,  the Commissioner stated that the “quality of

the materials of the above said rack were poor in the nature”.  The Commissioner’s knowledge and method used to determine the quality is not mentioned .  Knowledge to know the quality of steel without the assistance of an expert in the field shows that Commissioner’s  finding “poor  in nature” is devoid of merits and bonafide.

          In our view  an ordinary prudent  man on observing the defective rack, can easily understand the poor quality of the rack finding rust on it,  even though it was kept out of  sun and rain.  Moreover,  there were two bents on the legs of the rack.  From this facts , it is evident that the accessories were  at   poor quality.  So the objection of the Opposite  Party in this regard will not stand.

2. In paragraph No.3, the Commissioner stated that “the gage  quality is very bad”

the Commissioner’s knowledge and method used to determine the quality is not mentioned.  The Commissioner is supposed to report the cost of the  product and the gage quality and has to co-relate the nexus between them.

          As the accessories were proved  to be of poor quality and on seeing  bents  on the plates  the reference as to the gage quality, is not all needed to be reckoned and hence this objection of the Opposite Party has no relevance.  So this objection is not sustaining.

3.   The Commissioner cannot say that the purchaser of  a product at a megre price

is not expected to get No.1 product at his choice.

          The lower price of a product is not  supposed  to be  a product having defects.  Even a product with a lower  price should have a quality, for using  it for the purpose for  which it was intended.  Moreover, in our view the purchase price of Rs.2,500/-  for the accessories of a rack is not to be considered as a megre price.  So this objection of the Opposite Party cannot be taken into account.

4. The Commissioner herself found  that the rack was not fixed properly with

screw and the impact of non proper fixing was not narrated in the Commission Report.  If the legs of a rack are having uneven length and not having  sufficient strength for its proper use may  not help a person to tighten all the screws of the rack perfectly.  So,  this objection of the Opposite Party also shall not sustain.

          10. The Advocate Commission has also submitted some photos of the rack as part of the Commission Report,  which shows that the rack was fitted not with screws but with nuts and bolts.  So the reference by the Advocate Commissioner, as to “screws” instead of  “nuts and bolts” can be  presumed to be a mere mistake happened  from the part of the Commissioner.  The photos also reveal bent in the rack and rust  on  its accessories.  So, from the Complaint, documents and Commission Report and facts and circumstances of  the  case,  we are of the view that the  Opposite Party has sold  inferior quality of accessories for assembling  the rack,  which is unfair trade practice from the  Opposite Party for which  the Opposite  Party is responsible  and liable to the Complainant.  So point No.1 is proved  against the  Opposite Party.

          11. Point No.2:-  As point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party,  he is liable to pay compensation to the  Complainant.

          12.  Point No.3:-  As point No.1 and 2 are proved against the Opposite Party,  he is liable to pay cost of this complaint.

          In the result,  the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is ordered:-

1. To take back the accessories sold to the Complainant as per Ext.A1 bill and to refund the bill price of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) to the Complainant together with interest  at the rate of  8% per annum from the date of this Complaint.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)   as compensation for unfair trade practice and
3. To pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only)    as cost of this  Complaint.

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from

the date of this order,  failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order.      

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by

me and  pronounced  in the Open Commission on this the 3^rd   day of November 2022.

Date of filing: 16.07.2019.

                                                                   PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER   :    Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER  :     Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Jawahar.  A.N.                         Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.       Bill.                                                dt:19.12.2018.

A2(a)    Copy of Lawyer Notice.        dt:17.06.2019.     

A2(b)    Postal Receipt.                     

A3.       Acknowledgment.    

A4.       Commission Report.             dt:23.04.2022.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

                                                                                    PRESIDENT :     Sd/-   

                                                                   MEMBER     :     Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER