PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 18th day of February 2022
C.C. 248/2014
Complainant
Rajesh P R
S/o. Ratnachandran
‘Ratnam’
Chevayur P O
Kozhikode – 673 017
(By Adv Sri. T. P. Sudheer Kumar)
Opposite Parties
- The Proprietor
Plymica Limited
18/1175, A.T.T. Complex
Jail Junction
Kozhikode – 673 014
(By Adv. Sri. M. Vinod Kumar)
- Hero Plywood and Boards
Manchal , Karumathur
(By adv. Sri. P. C. Suresh Kumar & Adv. Sri. Baija P)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 28/09/2013 the complainant purchased plywood worth Rs.29,536/- from the first opposite party for making wardrobe as a part of remodelling his house. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the plywood. At the time of purchase, the first opposite party made the complainant believe that the plywood was of good quality with 10 year warranty. The complainant made wardrobe using the plywood purchased by employing talented and experienced carpenters. For beautification of the wardrobe, it was painted with expensive paint compressor. But after a few days, the plywood became damaged and bulged at several point in the wardrobe. The matter was informed to the first opposite party and after repeated requests, the staff came to inspect the damaged plywood. The first opposite party had promised to redress his grievance. But no positive action was taken by him thereafter. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to the first opposite party, for which, he sent a reply stating untenable contentions. No action was taken to redress is grievance. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for the monetary loss suffered by him or else to direct the opposite parties to make wardrobe in his house using good quality plywood at their cost and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing version jointly. Their contentions, in brief, are as follows: The purchase of plywood by the complainant is admitted. The purpose of the purchase was not told to them. The allegation that there was 10 year warranty is false and hence denied. The statement that the work and the painting of the wardrobe were done by experienced and talented workers is false. The opposite parties understand that the defect was due to the lack of expertise of the workers. The plywood of the same batch were sold to different customers and none has ever raised any such complaint. No staff of the first opposite party inspected the wardrobe and the opposite parties is never promised to redress his grievance as alleged. The defect occurred since the work was not done as per the instructions given to the complainant at the time of purchase. There was no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. There was no manufacturing defect. The lawyer notice was promptly replied with true facts. None of the reliefs is allowable. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of
service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
(2) Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence consist of the oral evidence of PW 1 and Ext. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. RW 1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. The expert was examined as CW 1. Ext.C1, C1 (a), C1 (b) series and C1 (c) series were also marked.
6. Both sides filed argument notes.
7. Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the plywood sold to him by the first opposite party, which was manufactured by the second opposite party, was of poor quality and standard and thereby there was unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW 1 and 5 documents were produced and marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 28/09/2013, Ext. A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 22/02/2014, Ext. A3 is the postal receipt, Ext. A4 is the postal acknowledgement card and Ext. A5 is the reply notice dated 07/03/2014. The Manager of the second opposite party was examined as RW 1. RW 1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the version. The brochure of the product was produced and marked as Ext. B1.
9. It is not disputed that on 28/09/2013 the complainant purchased plywood worth Rs.29,536/- from the first opposite party as per Ext. A1. The plywood was manufactured by the second opposite party and the first opposite party is the dealer. The plywood was used by the complainant for making wardrobe in his house. There is no serious dispute on the above aspects.
10. The grievance of the complainant is that after a few days, the plywood became damaged and bulges appeared at several points. The definite case of PW 1 is that at the time of purchase, the first opposite party had assured him that the product was of good quality with 10 year warranty, but after a few days of making the wardrobe, the plywood became damaged and bulged at different points.
11. The case tried to be setup by RW 1 is that there was no such warranty and defect was due to poor workmanship and non-compliance of the instructions given at the time of the purchase as can be seen by Ext. B1 brochure.
12. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext. C1 expert report and the evidence tendered by the expert as CW 1. At the instance of the complainant, the Senior Instructor of Govt. ITI, Kozhikode was appointed as an expert commission. The learned expert after a detailed inspection conducted on 17/11/2016 has reported that the complainant used the plywood for innovating the room of his house. It is reported by the learned expert that there were bulges in the plywood and it was due to manufacturing defect. It is specifically reported in Ext. C1 that no such damage can occur if the plywood was made using high quality veneer and glue with good treatment. Thus Ext. C 1 would prove that there was manufacturing defect to the plywood supplied to the complainant.
13. The opposite parties have filed the objection to Ext. C1 and also sought for setting aside the same. Their main objections are that CW 1 is not an expert in the field and no lab test was conducted. In this connection, it may be noted that the opposite parties did not file any objection that the Commission application. CW 1 was appointed as the expert Commission from the panel furnished by the complaint. At that time also the opposite parties did not raise any objection. The learned expert visited the sport after giving notice to all the parties. Ext. C1 (a) is the notice, Ext. C1 (b) series are the postal receipts and Ext. C1 (c) series are the postal acknowledgement cards in this regard which are attached to Ext. C1. CW 1 is having 25 years’ experience with qualification of NTC (National Trade Certificate) NAC (National Apprenticeship Certificate). CW 1 has categorically deposed that the manufacturing defect in the plywood can be realised by looking and touching and there is no need of any technology and he stated that the bulging seen on the outer surface of the plywood because of the bulging of the inner part of the plywood. Even though CW 1 was subjected to searching cross examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit his version. There is absolutely no the reason to disbelieve CW 1 or to discard Ext. C1. Ext. C1 can be relied on and acted upon.
14. The contention of the opposite parties is that there was no warranty for the product. The definite case of PW 1 is that he was told at the time of purchase that the product was having 10 year warranty. It is true that no warranty card is produced by the complainant. But that does not mean that the opposite parties are entitled to supply low quality product to the consumer. At least a minimum quality and standard is expected when a consumer purchases goods. But this case, after the purchase, the product became worthless after a few days due to manufacturing defect, as can be seen from Ext. C1.
15. Another contention of the opposite parties is that the defect was due to poor workmanship and the work was done in contravention of the instructions given at the time of purchase. But such a contention is not supported by any evidence. Ext. C1 does not support such a contention. There is to nothing indicate that Ext. B1 brochure or any such instructions were given to the complainant at the time of the purchase. Even as per the averments in the version, the opposite parties were not told about the purpose for which the plywood was purchased by the complainant. If that be so, there was no occasion for the first opposite party to give any instructions in this regarding.
16. Yet another contention of the opposite parties is that the plywood of the same batch were sold to several other customers and none of them has ever raised any such complaint. But it may be noted that the fact that the remaining plywood did not have any defects or the consumers who purchased it did not raise any such complaint are not sufficient ground to hold that the product supplied to the complainant was of good quality. It is common knowledge that some consumers may not make complaints at all even if they have grievance with regard to the goods bought or the services hired or availed of by them for consideration.
17. From the above discussion, what emerges is that the plywood supplied to the complainant as per Ext. A1 was of poor quality having manufacturing defect. It amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to supply good quality plywood or return the price to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the product for making wardrobe as a part of remodelling his house. But the plywood became damaged and bulged at many points. Undoubtedly, it has resulted in grave mental agony and hardship to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensation adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.20,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard.
18. Point No. 2 : In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is deposed of as follows:
(a) CC.248/2014 is allowed in part.
(b) The opposite parties are directed to supply good quality
plywood to the complainant or to return the purchase price of Rs.29,536/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand five hundred and thirty six only) to him.
(c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of
Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered.
(d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as coast of
proceedings to the complainant.
(e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the
receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 18th day of February 2022.
Date of Filing: 09/05/2014
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the retail invoice
Ext. A2 – Copy of the lawyer notice
Ext. A3 – Postal Receipt
Ext. A4 – Postal acknowledgement card
Ext. A5 – Reply notice
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 - Brochure
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW 1 – Rajesh P. R (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW 1- M. P. Narayanan
Commission Exhibits
Ext. C1 (CW1) - Commission report filed by Sri. Moosakutty .P, Senior Instructor, Govt.ITI, Kozhikode.
Ext. C1 (a) – Notice
Ext. C1 (b) series – Postal receipts
Ext. C1 (c) series – Postal acknowledgement cards.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
