CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 144/2002
K V Saji
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sojan Sekar MD,Delta Plywoods and Boards
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WAYANAD, KALPETTA OP. No. 144/2002 Dated this the 18th day of October 2007. PRESENT:- Sri. K.Gheevarghese, M.A, L.L.B. - President Smt. Saji Mathew, B.A, L.L.B. - Member K.V.Saji, : Karukapillil (House), : Thelambatta, Moolankavu Post, : Complainant Sulthan Bathery. : 1.Sojan Sekhar, Sekhar Agencies, : Moozhayil Shopping Complex, : Main Road, S.Bathery. : : Opposite Parties 2.Managing Director, : Delta Flywood/Boards, : Iringal, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam (Dist) : Complainant by : Sri. V.A.Mathai, Advocate Kalpetta. Opposite party 1 by : Sri.K.V.Pramode, Advocate Kalpetta. Opposite party 2 by : Sri.P.Anupaman, Advocate Kalpetta. ORDER By Sri. K.Gheevarghese, President: The gist of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant purchased plywood sheets worth of Rs.35,663/- on 4.08.2000. The plywood sheets were purchased for the innovation works as such showcase, almirah and other Kitchen works in the newly constructed house of the Complainant. At the time of purchase the assurance given by the 1st Opposite party was that the plywood sheets that (Cont..........2). -2- were sold by him were of good quality branded as delta plywood. The First Opposite Party himself had exposed the Complainant as Authorized dealer of the delta plywood. In case of any damages effected on the plywood sheets. The Sheets will be substituted, the warranty given for the plywood sheets were for a period of five years and this assurance was only oral. Using these plywoods the complainant made 4 showcases 3 Almirahs and Kitchen racks. Upon the completion of the works the house warming was done on 15.9.2001 even before the house warming it appeared to the Complainant that the works done by plywood sheets dripped of some powder and it was due to borer inflection. The complainant informed the First Opposite Party of this situation. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Party come to the house of the Complainant and they were convinced of the spoil caused on the plywood works. The Opposite Party applied some pesticides on this plywood works. However the insects which borrowed the plywood works were least affected of the pesticides application. The dripping of the powder from the plywood works continued. The application of pesticides up on this furniture continued again but there was no result. The Complainant consider that the attack of the borer upon the plywood was only due to the low quality of the plywood sheets. The Complainant sent lawyer notice where as the 2nd Opposite party was not ready for sending a reply to the notice. The Opposite Parties had deliberately done an unfair trade practice with the intention of cheating the Complainant. The plywood which were substandard were sold to the Complainant. The complainant had heavy loss and mental friction due to this defective and deficiency in service of the Opposite party. The value of the plywood comes Rs. 35,663.65 the Complainant had spend Rs. 35,462.56/- as wages for the furniture works. Rs.10,500/- was spend for painting. The Painting and other fitting costs Rs.17,846/-. Apart from the expenses the Complainant is to be compensated Rs. 50,000/- for (Contd.............3). -3- the mental agony cost by the Opposite Party. In total the Complainant is to be compensated with Rs. 1,50,000/- by the Opposite party. The Opposite Party made their appearance on notice. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and version filed. The contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that they are the agent of Opposite Party No.2 in supplying the delta plywood sheets. The guaranty given for the plywood sheets are for the period of one year only. The Opposite Party No.1 became aware of the borer infection on plywood sheets only upon receiving the notice in July 2002. The plywood sheets sold to the Complainant were not of high quality range. The sale was effected agreeing upon the terms with the Complainant. The price of plywood sheets claimed by the Complainant Rs.35,663/- is an exorbitant amount, the claim of the Complainant for mental pain and suffering are highly excessive it is admitted by the Opposite party No.1 that the Complainant purchased plywood sheets of ordinary quality for Rs.24,055.90 and water proof delta plywood sheets for Rs.6,342.75. At the time of purchase the Opposite party No.1 informed the Complainant the warranty of one year and the method of use of plywood sheets was also convinced the Complainant. The guaranty for a period of 15 years was not known to this Opposite Party and it was also false. On receiving the lawyer notice the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Opposite Party No.2 of the facts alleged by the Complainant. After words the representative of the Opposite Party No.2 visited the house of the Complainant and inspected the materials subjected to the disputes. On verification it was known to them that the borer has infected the plywood sheets from the frames used for fixing the sheets. The frame work was done with soft wood and of low quality. The low quality of wooden pieces are the reasons for the (Cont...........4). -4- infection of this borer. If the plywood sheets supplied by the Opposite Party were used as per the direction given by them, the work done on the plywood sheets wood continue for many years and this information was also given to the Complainant, as by the Opposite Party No.1. Apart from that the Complainant purchased plywood sheets low quality manufactured by other companies. This was known to them on examination of the plywood works. Opposite Party No.1 has no responsibility or liability. The materials manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 was sold by the Opposite Party No.1, if any liability is attributed that will be on the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2' s contention is that they had no deal of transaction with the Complainant. The Opposite party I is not the exclusive dealer of the Opposite Party No.2. The averment in the Complainant that they have purchased plywood sheets worth of Rs. 35,563.65 is not admitted no warranty for a period of 15 years was not assured. In case of any defect incurred on the plywood sheets the replacement is denied by Opposite Party 2. More over the men of the Opposite party inspected the house of the Complainant and the pesticides were applied are absolutely false. No brevity of contract exist in between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. Above all these Opposite Party is not in the habit of giving any guaranty to any of their dealers. The genuineness of the bill showing the purchase of the plywood sheets are not admitted by the Opposite Party No.2. According to them it is fabricated documents no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice was done by this Opposite Party. The Complaint is devoid of any merits and it is to be dismissed. The plywood sheets sold by the Opposite party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.1 was of Rs.3,719/-. This comprises plywood sheets of different sizes. The cost of plywood (Cont..............5). -5- sheets shown by the Complainant is Rs.30,398.65. The bill amount and the cost of the plywood sheets purchased by the Complainant shows greater variation and according to the Opposite party No.2 the bill is concocted and fabricated one. The Opposite party manufactures plywood sheets for last 6 years. Regarding the quality of the products no dispute raised so far. The Complaint is motivated with unfair interest to tarnish reputation and goodwill of the Company the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost. Points that are to be considered are:- 1.Whether the Opposite Parties had done any unfair trade practice? 2.Reliefs and cost. Point No.1:- The Complainant was examined as PW1, The house warming of the Complainant was on 17.9.2001. The house of the Complainant is a two storied one using the plywood sheets purchased from the shop of Opposite Party No.1 four almirahs, four showcases, two kitchen racks and four long mirrors were made. Ext. A1 is the bill given by the Opposite party No.1 towards purchase of plywood sheets. The value shown as per Ext.A1 is Rs.35,663.65 the items shown in Ext.A1 specifically mention plywood delta brand where as two items in Ext.A1 alone not specified delta make. The Opposite party No.1 was examined as OPW1. The contention of the Opposite party No.2 that the purchase of ordinary plywood and water proofs plywood were specifically noted. It is admittedly seen that the Opposite party No.1 sold the plywood made by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 has not given any oral evidence. Nothing was brought out by the Opposite party No.2 to show (Contd..............6). -6- that the plywood sheets sold by the Opposite party No.1 did not belong to there make. The Commissioner inspected the furniture made by the Complainant supplied by the Opposite Parties. The report filed by the expert Commissioner is the Ext.C1. The Ext. C1 shows that the reception room in the ground floor is having two showcases and another showcases in dining hall to two kitchen racks in kitchen. In the two bed rooms in the ground floor two almirahs, two long mirror and two tables in the up stair two tables two long mirrors and one showcases all these works were done with plywood sheets. On examination it was seen that the frame works were done with the hard wood of Teak and Kunni the frame works were not done with the soft wood. The works which were done by the plywood sheets had borer infection. The Commissioner opined that the borer infection to the plywood works was not from the frames. The contention of Opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the borer infected from the frames are not supported by any evidence. The Ext.A1shows that out of the total purchase of Rs.35,663.65 eccept two items other belongs to delta make the partner of the Opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW1, according to him what all plywood sheets were sold by them were manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2. It is to be presumed that the plywood sheets sold to the Complainant was manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 and sold by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 cannot disown the liability of the damages cost to the Complainant. The contention of the Opposite party No.1 that there was no guaranty or any assurance on his part for a period of 5 years is not established. How ever the Opposite Party No.1deposed that there is a guaranty for the plywood sheets for a period of one year. It is further deposed that except the sheets of Novapan all the plywood sheets (Cont.............7). -7- were supplied by the Opposite Party No.2 and sold by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant. It is admittedly seen that the Opposite Party No.1 did not deny the fact that the frames were made of hard wood Kunni and Teak. Apart from that according to the Opposite party No.1 if the plywood sheets were manufactured properly and of good quality borer will not be infected more over upon the inspection of Opposite Party No.1 he could not seen any seal of any other company on the plywood works done in the house of the Complainant. As a result it is found that the Opposite party No.1 sold the low quality plywood sheets manufactured by the Opposite party No.2 to the Complainant. The request of the Complainant to substitute the plywood sheets is unattended by the Opposite parties the point No.1 is found against the Opposite parties. Point No.2: The Opposite Party No.2 did not render any oral evidence or any documents were filed by them. The version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 is not substantiated by any evidence. Ext.A1 is the cash bill given by the Opposite Party No.1. Ext.A2 is the bill showing the accessory materials required for painting and other polishing works are shown in Ext.A3 series. Furniture works was carried out by a Carpenter. The receipt given by him to the Complainant is the Ext.A4 as per this receipt Rs.35,462.50 is seen accepted by the Carpenter. The painting and polishing work was done by an expert who is examined as PW2 according to PW2 all together 60 works were done. Ext.A5 shows that PW3 received Rs.10,500/- as the wages for the works. Some of the works were designed also. Ext.A1 to A3 series are the bills of purchase. The Ext.A3 series consist bills of 11 numbers. The Ext.A3 series does not give any specification that all the material covered in the bill were utilized for this (Cont.........8) -8- furniture work alone. No evidence in that aspect was brought out. Any how from the face of the documents the value of the plywood sheets and other accessories are to be returned to the Complainant. Along with the wages that was paid for furniture work. In the result the opposite parties 1 and 2 are ordered to return Jointly or severally Rs.82,584/- (Eighty two thousand Five hundred and eighty four only) to the complaint. The complainant is also entitled for Rs,10,000/- (Ten thousand only) towards the compensation and cost from the Opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of this order. If the opposite parties fail to comply with the order, the Complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 18th day of October 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. -9- APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1 Saji K.V Complainant PW2 Moidu pulikunnel Painter PW3 Sukumaran Carpenter Witnesses for Opposite Party: OPW1 Rasheed Business Exhibits for Complainant : A1 Cash Bill dt.04.08.2000 A2 Cash Bill dt.13.08.2000 A3 Cash Bill dt.26.02.2001 A4 Cash Bill dt.28.04.2001 A5 Cash Bill dt.18.03.2001 A6 Letter dt.02.07.2002 A7 Reply Notice dt.03.08.2002 A8 Acknowledgement dt.06.07.2002. C1 Report dt. C2 Series Sketches Exhibits for the Opposite Party Nil. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
