DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 18/02/2021
CC/31/2021
Innocent V.C.
S/o V.K.Chacko,
Valiyaveetil House,
Near KVR High School,
Shornur – 679 121 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
Proprietor,
Evergreen Plywoods,
15/143 -4, Near Kinfra Park,
Palappuram – 679 103 - Opposite Party
(Party in Person)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- The complainant purchased kitchen cupboards and shelves for his residence expending an amount of Rs.1,73,012/- from the opposite party shop during the period between 4/4/2019 and 17/4/2019. Within a span of 1 year the shelves started cracking and the doors fell off. The opposite parties refused to replace the defective shelves. Aggrieved thereby this complaint is filed seeking Rs.1,90,000/- by way of compensation and cost.
- The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Even though the opposite parties had on a routine vein countered the complainant pleadings, they admitted that the products provided to the complainant was sub-par and without any warranty. The complainant had knowledge of the inferior quality of products and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Considering the pleadings the following issues arise:
1. Whether, considering the admission made by the opposite party, the OP is relinquished of his liability to compensate the complainant ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not replacing the damaged kitchen cupboards ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs, as to Compensation and Cost ?
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The opposite party failed to appear before this Commission after having filed the version. No evidence was adduced by him.
Issue no. I
5. The complainant’s grievance is with regard to the cracking and breaking off of the shelves and kitchen cupboard purchased from the opposite party. Instead of contesting the complaint pleadings, the opposite party had in paragraph 2 of the version, admitted that the materials purchased were without any quality and did not have any warranty. He further qualified his contentions with statement that the complainant purchased the materials with full knowledge of the defects. The OP claims that as the complainant had knowledge, the complainant had eschewed his right to sue the opposite party.
6. We are unable to concede to this pleading made by the opposite party. It may be true that the complainant was ready to purchase a product that was not branded “Premium” or “First Quality”. And being of inferior quality does not mean it incurs damage at the drop of a hat. No person of minimum wit would opt for materials that would be damaged and be destroyed on usage for domestic purposes. That being so, the contention of the opposite party is made with the sole intention to mislead this Commission and there are no bonafides whatsoever in the contentions made by the opposite party. The argument of the opposite party, if let to survive, would lead to an absurd proposition that if he take the contention that he sells sub-par products with everybody’s knowledge, the provisions of law would not be applicable to him.
We therefore hold that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the defective products supplied by him.
Issue No.2
7. In view of the findings above, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not replacing the damaged materials.
Issue No.3 & 4
8. It goes without dispute that the complainant who purchased the materials for his own personal use would undergo tremendous stress upon being met with such damages to products purchased for his daily routine use. He is to be reasonably compensated. Further, we are of the opinion that the materials, if left to be with the complainant for further use, would only lead to further grievance. He is therefore, entitled to have fresh kitchen shelves and cupboards.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby order the opposite party to repay an amount of Rs.1,73,012/- with interest @9% per annum from 18/4/2019 till date of repayment. The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.5,000/-. In the event the opposite party fails to effect payment as stated above, the complainant is also entitled to a solatium of Rs.250/- per month or part of a month thereof till date of final payment.
Comply with the aforesaid order within 45 days of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 15th day of June, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Series of 3 photographs.
Ext.A2 – Original invoice dated 4/4/2019.
Ext.A3 – Original Invoice dated 17/4/2019.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost : No costs allowed
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
