1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant that he placed order for one Wooden Door measuring 74” X 36” and one Plastic Door measuring 75” X 30” with fitting materials with OP but due to want of 36” wooden door, the OP supplied 38” door and advised the complainant to fit the door after cutting it from both sides.  It is submitted that after cutting the wooden door, the same was damaged and on contact the OP did not take the responsibility.  Thus alleging fault on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.2800/- towards cost of the wooden door and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant without asking or taking advice of the OP, cut the door from both sides for which the door was damaged and hence the OP is not liable for any damage as claimed by the complainant.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  The complainant has also filed written argument.  We heard from the A/R for the OP and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, sale of wooden door by the OP to the complainant is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that he placed order for wooden door measuring 74” X 36” but the OP supplied 38” door.  On perusal of retail invoice issued by OP vide No.236 & 237 dt.30.12.2017 it is seen that no size of door has been mentioned in the invoice and hence it is very difficult to know whether the OP has supplied the door 38” instead of 36” as ordered by the complainant.  Further the complainant stated that the OP advised him to cut the door from both sides before fitting and hence he cut both the sides.  It is not understood as to why the complainant cut the door from both the sides when against 74” length of the door there was no dispute by the complainant.  The complainant only stated that instead of 36” the OP supplied 38” door perhaps in the breadth.  Hence there was no necessity to cut both sides of the door.  Moreover, if the complainant agreed with the proposal of the OP to cut the door by himself to bring it into correct measurement, it is responsibility of the complainant to cut the door carefully by an expert but the complainant has not stated that in spite of cutting the door by an expert, the door damaged.  In the above circumstances, we do not find any fault on the part of the OP and thus the case of the complainant fails without having any merit.

5.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is dismissed but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)