DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^h day of February 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                               Date of filing: 04/04/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

(C.C.No.59/2017)

Rafi Alathur,

S/o Ali,                                                                             -        Complainant

Residing at AlifLaila,

Main Road, Alathur,

Palakkad, Kerala.

(By.Adv.C.B.Anand)

 V/s

1.  The General Manager,                                                   -        Opposite parties

     Eurotech, Trissur Road,

     Changaramkulam,

     Malappuram D.T,

     Kerala – 679 591.

2.  Manager,

    Eurotech Agencies,

    Oasis International, Murikkavu,

    Palakkad – 678 001.

    (By Adv.Priya.S)

O R D E R

Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

          The complainant had purchased a kitchen sink 10049 Bouma and flooring drain SS Clavo each one number by paying a sum of Rs.13,300/- on 31.05.2015 from the 2^nd opposite party.  After purchasing the said product the complainant was using the same and just after using the same for a few weeks there started problems like rusting on the side of the sink water leakage etc.  The matter was immediately intimated to the 2^nd opposite party and they inturn stated that it is a manufacturing fault and the sink would have to be replaced.  The complainant had purchased the same to be installed in his house.  The leakage and rusting caused to the sink let the waste water into the other portions of the sink and now the kitchen cupboard and allied portion of the area are getting wet and destroyed.  Sink was erected for the purpose of letting the water to the drainage safely but, this sink due to its inferior quality, is now letting the whole water leak into the kitchen area.  The leakage of water had caused extensive damages to the kitchen area and the cupboards erected in the kitchen.  The opposite parties had supplied inferior quality product after interpreting it as a quality product extracted money from the complainant.  The company had also given warranty to the said product and non attendance to the complaints of the consumer amounts to deficiency of service towards the customer.  Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complainant had suffered huge mental agony and physical strain apart from the financial loss due to damages.  The complainant had caused to issue a lawyer notice dated.26.12.2016 to the 2^nd opposite party for which the opposite party had not made any reply so far.  Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to replace the sink with a new one and also to pay the damages for the loss caused by way of leakage of water from the sink and also to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with the entire cost of this proceedings.

          Opposite party entered appearance upon notice from the Forum and filed  version stating the following.  There is no manufacturing defect in the case of kitchen sink 10049 Bouma    and flooring drain SS Clavo.  The opposite party always provide quality products the so called rusting of the product might have happened due to the careless handling of the product by the complainant.  On receiving the advocate notice dated.24.12.2016, the opposite parties have informed the complainant that the product is ready at Palakkad showroom and is ready for replacement.  But the complainant was reluctant to accept the same.  Again on 14.03.2017, the Assistant Manager, Customer Care sent an e mail to the complainant stating that the opposite party is ready for replacement at Palakkad show room, please sent somebody to collect your product.  The same was sent to the customer through a registered post also.  But again the complainant did not turn up or was ready to accept the product.  So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party.  The complaint is filed with an intention to extract money from opposite party.  Hence the complaint had to be dismissed without cost. 

          Complainant filed an application as IA 203/2017 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the kitchen sink.  Application was allowed and an advocate commissioner was appointed to examine the kitchen sink and file a detail report.  Accordingly the commissioner has visited the site and a detailed report was filed.  Opposite party filed objection to the commissioner’s report.  Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Opposite party 1 & 2 filed application for cross examination of the complainant.  Application was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A3 was marked from the part of the complainant.  Commission report was marked as Ext.C1.  Opposite party also filed chief affidavit.  Exts.B1 & B2 was marked from the side of the opposite party.  Opposite party 1 was cross examined as DW1.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect for the above sink?

2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues No.1 & 2

           We have perused the documents and affidavits produced before the Forum.  The opposite parties had admitted that there is manufacturing defects to the above product and they were ready for replacement, but the complainant was reluctant to accept the offer.  They had sent e mail and registered letter in connection with the above and the acknowledgement of the same was produced before the Forum which was marked as Ext.B2.  The commissioner had visited the location of the complainant and had stated that the sink is completely destroyed due to rust and water was leaking through the sink towards the cupboard and the plywoods of the cupboard is completely destroyed and is not fit for anything.  Moreover termite had attacked the cupboard due to moisture and there was small insects and ants and inside the cupboard over the affected areas.  The rest of the portions of the cupboard in the kitchen were not damaged.  The complainant submits that he had to replace not only the sink but also the cupboard erected below that area, which involves mason and carpentry work.  From the above circumstances the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the above sink and also to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as damages for the loss caused by way of leakage of water from the sink and also as compensation towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant.  We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings. 

This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize from the opposite party interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization. 

           Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of February 2018.

      Sd/-

                  Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                       Sd/-        

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

        Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  Original Invoice issued by opposite party to the complainant Invoice No.141

             dated.31.05.2015

Ext.A2          -  Original Abstract Estimate issued by by opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A3          -  Photo copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant’s advocate to the 2^nd

              opposite party dated.24.12.2016 with acknowledgement card.      

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  Photo copy of e mail message sent by the customer care of Eurotech Baths

              &  Kitchen Ltd to the opposite party dated.14.03.2017

Ext.B2 -  Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party with

             acknowledgement card

Commission Repot

Ext.C1 -  Commission report dated.10.07.2017

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   -  Dr.Muhammed Rafi

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Ext.DW1       -  Abdul Latheef

Cost   

           Rs.5,000/-