DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt.Vidya A, Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 03.12.2020.
CC/155/2020
T . Mini,
A 32, Canara Bank Colony,
Chandranagar,Palakkad-678 007.
(Party in person) - Complainant
Vs
The Propreitor,
M/s.Woodmax Kitchen & Interiors,
Gangotri Building, Stadium Bye Pass road,
Near Pulse Hospital,Palakkad-679014. - Opposite party
(By Adv. K Dhananjayan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A, Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant engaged the opposite party for carrying out the renovation works in her kitchen and some other associated works. The details of the works to be done and the specifications of materials were communicated to the opposite party verbally and through Whats App.
As the complainant had to attend her aged parents staying in Palakkad and her family in Kochi, she could not supervise the entire work. The works completed by the opposite party were not as per the agreement and the complainant was not satisfied with it.
After a lapse of 16 months, the modular kitchen fixed by the opposite party was seen affected with fungus and termite. The complainant had specifically asked to use termite proof material and the opposite party did the work against the agreed terms. The opposite party used substandard materials for construction against the instructions given by the complainant which resulted in damage within a short span of time.
The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.1,98,300/- to the opposite party on different occasions. An additional amount Rs.23,000/- was paid for netlon replacement with SS mesh.
In addition to the substandard works, the workers of the opposite party damaged water filter which the complainant had to rectify at her cost. The doors were also not fitted properly. Many of the works done by the opposite party were against the instructions given to him.
The conduct of the opposite party in completing the works using substandard materials and poor workmenship caused financial loss to the complainant. So this complaint is filed for getting a compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the opposite party including the cost of replacing the defective cabinets.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The opposite party was absent at the first instance and was set ex parte. Later he appeared and filed petition to set aside ex parte order along with version. It was allowed and version taken on file.
3. Pleadings of the opposite party in their version is as follows:
The opposite party denied the entire allegations in the complaint and stated that the materials supplied by the opposite party are of good quality and free from defects. The opposite party had used anti- termite solvents in the raw material used for the modular kitchen. The defects, if any, occurred are only due to the poor/lack of maintenance and usage by the complainant. The alleged defect occurred after a lapse of 16 months itself shows that it had no defects for a period of one year. They never provide life time warranty for any product and it is not possible to give it. There is no Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant had no cause of action against them. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the modular kitchen fixed by the opposite party suffers from any defect?
2. If yes, whether it is due to the substandard material and workmanship used by the opposite party?
3. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs, if any as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and additional proof affidavit in evidence. Complainant in her affidavit has sought for appointment of a ‘Committee’ to ascertain the patent defects in the cupboard. The affidavit (dated 25.11.21) is numbered as IA 56/22 and allowed. Advocate Commissioner filed report. Exits. A1 to A3 marked from the side of the complainant (A3 is a series of 6 photographs) and evidence closed. The opposite party did not file proof affidavit. The Commission report was omitted to be marked. So it was re opened suo-moto and the Commission report was marked as Ext C1. The complainant filed notes of arguments heard the complainant.
6. Points No. 1 & 2
The complainant’s main grievance is that the opposite party who was entrusted with the work of renovation of kitchen used poor quality materials against her direction. In her affidavit, she detailed her issues such as the opposite party used unknown brand of tiles while removing the old tiles. Also while tiling, M-sand was not provided by the opposite party and work men used mud from the yard. The wiring was done in a shoddy manner. Further the materials for the cupboard shelves were supposed to be marine ply and she instructed to use damp proof and termite proof which the opposite party did not comply with. Within one year, the kitchen cupboards were affected with fungus and termite.
The opposite party denied the entire contentions raised by the complainant and contended that the products supplied by him are of good quality and is free from any defects. The opposite party used anti termite solvents in the raw materials used for the modular kitchen. The defects occurred to the modular kitchen, if any, (not admitted) is only because of the poor maintenance and improper usage of the complainant.
The opposite party did not take any steps to cross-examine the complainant to bring out the veracity of their contention.
7. In order to substantiate her contention, the complainant took out Commission and the Commissioner after inspection filed report which is marked as Exhibit C1.The Commissioner in his report affirmed the complainant’s contention and stated that the materials used for the doors and shelves are of poor quality. Further all the shelves and cupboards which was fixed on the wall was affected with termite and collapsed due to termite infestation and not in a position to use. He further reported that some of the shelf’s door beneath the kitchen slabs were not in a position to open and this may be due to lack of proper anti-termite treatment at the time of interior work. The Commissioner along with report filed some photographs showing the condition of the kitchen shelves. The doors are in a broken condition.
The opposite party did not file any objection to the Commission report
8. So the complainant had successfully proved that the kitchen shelves fixed by the opposite party is made of poor quality materials and affected with termite and fungus. The damages caused to the kitchen shelves were due to the poor quality of materials and work men ship. Point No. 1 &2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
The complainant also submitted the details of payment made by her in the complaint.(Cheque Number and Date) As per that she had made a payment of Rs.1,98,300/- to the opposite party towards the modular kitchen work. But she did not produce any evidence showing the payment. However the opposite party did not dispute the payment made to him. Further the complainant claimed that the opposite party’s workers damaged the water filter during the course of their work and she had to replace it and caused additional financial liability, but not produced any evidence.
9. Points 3, 4, 5:
In view of the findings in Points No 1 & 2, we observe that there is Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Even after receiving the payment the opposite party did not follow the instructions of the complainant and used substandard materials for the kitchen cupboard. Within a short period itself it collapsed due to termite infestation. The Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party had caused this and he is liable to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00000/-, as the cost of refurbishment of the modular kitchen, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for their Deficiency in service Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.7,500/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof by way of solatium to the complainant till date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 1st day of, November 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-Copy of Quotation issued by the opposite party dated: 12.02.2019.
Ext.A2- (series)- Transcripts of What Apps messages between the complainant and
the opposite party.
Ext.A3- (series)-Photographs, showing defects in the kitchen cabinets.
Ext.C1- commission Report.
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 : 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and five hundred only)
