DATE OF FILING : 06-07-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14-03-2012.
Harish Chandra Jha,
Sharma Aprtment, Flat no. 206,
405, G. T. Road ( S ),
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711103.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. Shri Kailash Sharma,
Mithila Timber Works,
18/1, Devendra Ganguly Road,
Bataitala Bazar,
Howrah – 711 103.
2. M/S. Howrah Saw Mills
Timber Merchants & Saw Mill Owners
Andul, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 302.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2 Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Shri Saikat Seal,
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2
: Shri Subrata Kole,
Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is to consider an application U/S12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as defects in goods.
2. Complainant, Harish Chandra Jha, filed this complaint praying for compensation for Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 664/- towards cost of the frame of the window and a cost of Rs. 500/- as transport charges from Andul to Darbhanga, Bihar and for litigation cost against the o.ps.
3. Complainant placed an order for making two doors, four windows, frame of one choki, one folding cot and one almirah before the O.P., M/S. Mithila Timber Works. Accordingly the complainant with the O.P. no. 1 visited the O.P. no. 2, Howrah Saw Mill for supply of required timbers. As per dictation of the O.P. no. 1. Howrah Saw Mill supplied the material to the O.P. no. 1. After two months from the date of this order the O.P. no. 1 supplied the materials on 13-12-2009 and those materials were sent to the residential address of the complainant in Darbhanga, District, Bihar, through transport. Subsequently it was detected that one window frame was short from the actual measurement. So the complainant had to buy another frame for the window at a price of Rs. 664/-. He has further alleged that the quality of the timber and the ply was very low. Hence the case.
4. The O.P. no. 1 in his written version stated that the window materials were purchased by the complainant himself ; that he was engaged only for job work ; that the complainant was completely satisfy over the finished window furniture as per order ; that there was no defect in its said work ; that this is a case filed against him in collusion with the complainant and O.P. no. 2.
5. The O.P. no. 2, the proprietor of the Howrah Saw Mill in his written version stated that he sold timbers of different sizes to the complainant on 06-03-2010 and 07-03-2010 as per complainant’s direction and he paid the full price ; that no question of sub standard material supply does arise ; that this is a fit case for dismissal.
Upon pleadings of the parties two points arose for determination.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed for ?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and for brevity. After going through the petition and written versions of the parties together with the annexures and after hearing Ld. Lawyers we are of the view that the instant merit less complaint must fail owing to following reasons :
(a) The complainant never came before this Forum in clean hands. Upto para 7 of his petition of complaint he never disclosed that the window frames or the other furniture are ment for his Darbhanga, residence, Bihar. Only in para 8 we come across a line wherein the complainant implored for verification of the short fall or the defects of the window panel etc. by an official of this Forum after visiting his residence. This is really funny how could the complainant expect that the Forum will depute an official to verify the deficiency in service of the wooden panel covering a long distance from the Howrah to Darbhanga, Bihar ?
(b) The complainant in para 2 of his complaint stated that he placed the order to O.P. no. 1 for making two doors, four windows etc. Here creeps in a pertinent question that the O.P. no. 1 had to act as per the version of the complainant over specification of the materials and measurement thereto. It is within anybody’s guess that a carpenter while taking an order for making wooden frames etc. always takes the measurement himself after visiting locale and inspecting the open windows, doors where the panels after preparation are to be installed. In the instant case the O.P. no. 1 had to act as per dictation of the complainant. In such a case where the orders are placed by the owner of the house, the carpenter in fact has no scope to verify the measurement as disclosed by the owner. He being a small business man acted as per the terms of the complainant for profit. We are in dark if the complainant at all disclosed to the O.P. no. 1 that the materials are required for his Darbhanga, residence. It is within our experience that the carpenter while making the panels takes measurement of the place for good many numbers of times while preparing the same lest the panel should not fall short of the measurement. In the instant case the carpenter had no scope for taking frequent measurement of the open window before completion of his work.
( c ) The complainant is not an expert on this score and naturally we are not in a position to ascertain if his specification and measurement was not wrong or defective. If anybody is to blame for alleged deficiency in service either with respect to the wooden panels or almirah, the complainant is to blame himself with respect to the poor quality of ply window or other allegations. The complainant had ample scope to verify before transportation of the furniture to long distant Darbhanga. Furthermore, the dates as noted in the Annexure-D is 13/12/2009, in Invoice 26/02/2010 (Annexure-A) and in the Tax Invoice, Annexure-B is 07/03/2010, and in Annexure-E, the letter, is 22/02/2010. The pertinent question creeps in how the complainant can register his objection in the letter dated 22/02/2010 (Annexure-F) when the wooden materials were supplied by O.P.-2 on 07/03/2010 ? This is very very confusing. The antedated Annexure-B vis-à-vis E are indicative to ingenuity of the complainant who trickery to fleece the O.P.-1. We are not attaching much importance to the report of the Ld. Commissioner as it was ex-parte one and no representative of the O.Ps. were present in Darbhanga during the work of Commission. Furthermore, the deviation as noted in the report is very negligible.
7. In fact this is a bogus case based on surmise and conjecture having no solid document to rely upon. The enclosures A & C are the bills prepared on plain paper and the Annexure D is the bill submitted by the O.P. no. 1 to the complainant. This bill cannot be put into question as there is no dispute over billing and the other enclosure B is the bill of the Howrah Saw Mill to supply the timber.
Therefore, in the light of the above we are of the view that this merit less complaint cannot have any respite in the eye of law. It is a fit case for dismissal.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
