By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2.  The Complainant started a house construction by taking loan of Rs.90,00,000/- from State Bank of India, Kainatty branch.  The Complainant stated that in relation to the construction of his house, he had purchased 66.7 Cubic Meter Kwaila wood for Rs.1,12,455/- including tax on 29-06-2020 and Malesia wood worth Rs.1,51,020/- including tax on 19-01-2019 and Kwila wood worth Rs.88,710/- on 19-03-2019.  The door, doorframes, staircase, and handrails of the staircase were made from these woods.  Manoj, S/o. Sankaran and Jayesh, S/o. Narayanan had done the carpentry works.  Total 160.7 cubic meters of wood had been purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties.  Actually, the Complainant had purchased wood from the First Opposite Party, but the bill was issued by the Second Opposite Party.  The Opposite Parties issued a bill of Rs.47,200/- for the wood worth Rs.88,710/- and a bill of Rs.59,495/- for the wood worth Rs.1,51,820/-.  However, due to the poor quality of the wood, the structures made of the above wood got cracked and became unusable.  Moreover, the doors could not be closed.  The wood used for the stairs also cracked and became unusable.  According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had sold the wood to him with lifelong warranty and assured that it would not be destroyed due to white ants, broken or cracked. The Complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,50,000/- for carpentry work, Rs.10,000/- for transport charge and Rs.4,000/- for loading and unloading.  Due to the cheating of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had lost the above amount.  Though the Complainant had intimated the above matter to the Opposite Party in time, the Opposite Party tried to escape from their responsibility.  It caused delay in completion of construction of house. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a lawyer notice on 20.03.2020 to the Opposite Party demanding to refund the price of the wood, wages of the Carpenter and loss incurred to him.  The Opposite Party sent a reply notice with false and unjustifiable allegations. They have not acted according to the notice.  All these acts of the Opposite Parties amount to unfair trade practice.   Hence, this complaint.

3.  The Opposite Party entered appearance before the Commission on receipt of summons and submitted their written version.  The Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainant had purchased wood from the shop of Opposite Party.  According to the Opposite Party, bills had been issued as per the demand of the Complainant for the price of the wood.  The Complainant and his men came to the shop of the Opposite Party and the Complainant selected the wood and the woods were cut into logs in the presence of Complainant in the quantity according to the Complainant’s estimate.  The Opposite Party denied that the furniture made from the said wood was of poor quality and became useless, the doors could not be closed, the wood was broken and useless etc.  The Opposite Party denied that the sale was made by them with a lifetime guarantee.  The timbers should be kept properly away from rain, snow and sun.  Neither the Opposite Party nor anyone else gives a lifetime guarantee to the timbers as the timbers left untreated would perish.  The statement in the Complaint that the timbers were sold to the Complainant under the warranty that they would not crack or broken was denied by the Opposite Party as fabricated.   According to the Opposite Party, damage to the wood was caused due to the Complainant’s failure to maintain the wood properly and use experienced carpenters.  The Opposite Parties have no responsibility for any damage of the wood.  They further stated that many people have bought the timber from the Opposite Parties. No one has raised any issues.  The wages paid by Complainant to the carpenter, the transport charges and the unloading charges to be paid by the Opposite Party etc. are also false as stated in the Complaint and it has been lost to the Complainant due to the fraud of the Opposite Party.   If there is any damage to the wood, it could be understood when the woods had sawn or after carpentry works.  As the Complainant has not stated that there has been any damage to the timber at the time of sawing and carpentry work, it must have been caused by subsequent handling of the wood. The statement that the above matters were timely communicated by the Complainant to the Opposite Party is false.  There is no unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.   The Opposite Parties are not liable to pay damages and prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint with cost.

4.  On perusal of Complaint and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?

5.  Point No. 1 and 2:- For the sake of convenience and brevity both the points are considered together.

6.  The Complainant had adduced oral evidence.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4 and C1.  On the side of the Opposite Party, Second Opposite Party was examined as OPW1.  No documents were marked from his side.

  7. Here, the case of the Complainant is that he had purchased wood for his newly constructing house from the shop of Opposite Party.  But they were of poor quality.  Here the Opposite Party admits the sale of the wood to the Complainant.  According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant selected the wood and got the timber cut.  Usually, an owner constructing a house will depend upon the carpenter for selection of the wood as they are having the knowledge and also carrying on wood work.  Regarding price of the wood, the Complainant produced Ext. A1 series, cash receipt.  Although the Complainant in his complaint and affidavit stated that the Opposite Parties had given lifelong guarantee, he has not placed on record any conclusive proof i.e. any warranty and guarantee given by the Opposite Parties in this regard.

8. We heard both the counsels in detail and perused the documents.   It is not in dispute that the woods were purchased from the Opposite Party's establishment. It is also common Knowledge that the wood that is not conditioned or dry would shrink in due course of time.  The main things is to be considered here are whether the timber was damaged due to the poor quality of wood or as the Complainant kept the wood unsecure and employed inexperienced workers.   According to the expert report, Ext. C1 the frame of the doors was less secure, cracked and bent.  The planks attached to the said frames are made of strong wood.  The wood from which the doors frames were made and the wood used for planking inside the frames differed in color, gain and strength.  Some of the woods used for staircase were bent, cracked and in some parts rotten.  If this is to happen, the matter raised by the Complainant regarding the quality of the woods should be considered.  It is relevant that the Complainant bought the timber after taking the carpenter with him and showing him the timber.  At the time of examination  the Complainant deposed that “acw Dcpf³ acw FSp¯v AtX anÃn \n¶p Xs¶ CuÀ¶v hm§pIbmWv sNbvXXv.  Bimcnsbbpw Iq«n t]mbmWv acw FSp¯Xv. acw CuÀ¶v load sN¿p¶Xphscbpw BimcnamÀ IqsSbp­mbncp¶p”.  He also deposed that “CuÀ¶v  size B¡nb ac§fn damage I­n«nÔ.  He further deposed that “ac¯n\v complaint Ds­¦n Bimcn¡v a\Ênemhpsa¶v ]dªm \ntj[n¡p¶nÃ.  ]Wn FSp¡p¶ kab§fnsem¶pw damage I­n«nÔ. He also deposed that “]Wn FSp¡p¶ kab¯pw ac¯n\v Fs´¦nepw damage DffXmbn Bimcn Ft¶mSv ]dªn«nÔ.  At the time of examination PW2 deposed that “Rm³ ]cntim[\bv¡p D]tbmKn¨ ac§Ä GsXms¡bmsW¶v Fsâ report  ]dªn«nÃ.  ac§Ä Indian/foreign wood BtWm F¶v ]dbm³ IgnbnÔ.  PW2 deposed that “ac¯nsâ Dd¸v ]Wn FSp¡p¶ Bimcn¡v a\ÊnemIpw.  {Zhn¨ ac§fmsW¦n CuÀ¨ sN¿pt¼mÄ Adnbm³ ]äpw”.    There is no mention regarding the type of wood used for the construction.  From this, it is clear that there were no complaints during the making of the door, door frame and staircase.  Such incidents had happened after fixing the door. The Complainant had not raised any objection at the time of purchase or at the time of fitting of the said wood and if there was any defect, the carpenter, who made the doors, should have raised the objections.  Here, the carpenter, who had installed the doors and windows, is not examined, who could have disclosed about the quality of the wood.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and as such, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5^th day of October 2023.

Date of Filing:-12.07.2021.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              S. P.  Satheesh.                               Business.

PW2.              K. J. Jose.                                          Range Forest Officer.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Renju Alex.                                       Business.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1(a).                        Copy of Cash Invoice/Cash Credit.                    Dt:19.03.2019.

A1(b)             Copy of Cash Invoice/Cash Credit.                    Dt:29.06.2020.

A1(c)              Copy of Cash Invoice/Cash Credit.                    Dt:09.01.2021.

A1(b)             Copy of Quotation.                                                Dt:09.01.2021.

A2.                  Copy of Lawyer Notice.                                        Dt:20.03.2021.

A3.                  Acknowledgment Card.

A4.                  Reply Notice.                                                           Dt:09.04.2021.

C1.                  Expert Commission Report.                                 Dt:15.12.2021.      

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.     

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-