SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT:

     Complainant has filed by this  complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking to get an  order against opposite party to refund Rs.3,30,000/- towards the price of the  articles supplied to complainant together with Rs.25,000/- as  compensation  and Rs.10,000/-  towards litigation expense alleging deficiency  in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of  opposite party.

   Brief facts of the complaint are that  the complainant placed  an order of  3 numbers  wardrobe and TV stand and one corner sofa with the OP on 3/1/2018.  At the time of placing the order complainant has clearly stated that the door of wardrobe should be teak wood and side and inside should be  of wooden materials. As per the order T 268, 3 ward robes and TV stand were costing  Rs.2,15,000/- after the discount given by the OP.  On the date of order complainant paid Rs.1,15,000/- as advance and the balance amount paid through cheque.  Further complainant submits that  cost of the corner sofa with cloth material is Rs.1,15,000/-  was booked  as per the order No.TS 304 and paid Rs.50,000/- in cash  and  balance amount  through in cheque.  The total cost of the entire furniture was Rs.3,30,000/- .  After receiving the entire amount, the OP delivered the furniture, it is  found that the front 3 door of the wardrobe was made of wooden board and inside  some artificial teak grains were created by spray polish. The entire materials except the  back portion are made of board particles and  back side is covered with  plywood and inside portion of the plywood, the teak grains is given.  The spray polish was not done perfectly. The spots are covered  by the  spray polish.  The wardrobe delivered are of Inferior  quality and  the present  wardrobe  delivered will only Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.  The corner sofa supplied by the OP are  poor quality wood and its is life is very short and possibility of getting damage  within  two years. The white ants are seeing inside the cloth material.  The same inferior quality of wood is used for TV stand  also. The OP has started the work of the furniture only after receiving the entire amount in advance.  The furniture supplied are substandard and not worthy of the price amount .  By using low quality materials and giving warranty  for repair  for the material supplied is not proper  trade practice.  The complainant does not wants to retain the furniture and the OP is not ready to take the same back. Complainant caused a lawyer notice to the OP, on receipt of the notice, the sales man of the OP came to the  complainant’s house and  informed  that they are ready to repair  the articles.  The OP was not ready to change board particles and use the  teak wood in place of board particles.  Hence the complaint.

     OP has filed written version admitting the placing of order by the complainant  but denying the allegations raised in the complaint.  It is submitted that the complainant has reported the defects of the furniture supplied  before taking the delivery of the furniture.  At the time of  delivery one salesman and technician were present and  they requested the complainant to keep the furniture in the house and they will be making  arrangement for taking back the  furniture  after consulting with the manager.   But they have not taken back the furniture.  OP further submits that in the lawyer notice he has not made any reply but sent one technician informing  that they are  ready to repair the  furniture.  The intention of the complainant is to somehow persuade  the OP to replace  the furniture  purchased from the OP with that made of teak wood materials.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to  any  relief and prayed  for the dismissal of the complaint.

    Along with the complaint, Advocate commission application filed to submit report by Advocate commissioner with the help of expert commissioner after inspecting the furniture  included in this case(IA.No.16/19).  The application was allowed and the Advocate commissioner filed report along with the report of expert commissioner with photos if the furniture purchased from the OP’s shop.  Along with the complaint, complainant  has also filed a petition for interim attachment before  judgment  under order  38 Rule 5 of  CPC, which was allowed and the furniture of OP’s shop for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was attached.

       In order to prove the case complainant has filed his affidavit evidence  and documents.  He has been examined as PW1 and the documents got marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and the commissioner’s reports as Exts.C1&C2.  PW1 has been subjected to  cross examination for OP and marked Ext.B1.  The Advocate commissioner was examined as PW2.  After that the learned counsel of both parties made oral argument and the complainant’s learned counsel filed written argument note also.

     Undisputed facts in this case are purchase of furniture mentioned in sale orders Exts.A1&B1 by the  complainant from OP’s furniture shop.  Further both parties admitted the payment of Rs.2,15,000/- made by the complainant to OP for the furniture .  As per Ext.B1 the total amount  comes to Rs.1,10,000/-.

      The only noticeable point raised on behalf of the complainant is that at the time of  placing the order the complainant has ordered that the front door of 3 wardrobe  should be  of original teakwood and also the side and inside should be of wooden materials.  But the entire materials  except the back portion are made of board particles and back side is covered with plywood and inside portion of the plywood, the teak grains  is given.  Further alleged that inferior wood material  is used.  Another allegation  of the complainant is that the corner sofa supplied  by the OP are of poor quality wood and  life of the  sofa is very short.  The white ants are seeing inside the cloth material.  The same  inferior  quality of wood is used for T.V stand also.  According to complainant the furniture supplied by  OP are substandard and not worthy of the  price amount given and not according to the order placed.

      On the other hand  OP pleaded that there is no contract between the OP and the  complainant to sell to the complainant the furniture items detailed  in the sale orders(Exts.A1&B1)  . OP submits that all the furniture items supplied to the complainant were manufactured and  supplied  according to the specification given by the complainant and as per the sales orders placed by the  complainant to the OP and at the prices agreed by the  complainant and  discounts as mentioned in the sale orders.  OP further submits that if the entire wardrobe is to be made of teak wood as alleged in the complaint, the cost of a single wardrobe alone will come to about Rs.1,80,000/- and not Rs.60,000/-.  Similarly if the  entire corner sofa is to be  made  of teak wood only, then the cost of a single sofa will come to about Rs.156500/- and not  Rs.1,15,000/-.  OP denied the allegation of the complainant that the  furniture supplied are substandard and not worthy of the price amount and that the articles supplied.

      Complainant has established his allegations through the Advocate commissioner and expert commissioner and also from the photos submitted  along with  commission report.  The commissioner very specifically stated that the middle glass door frames of the  wardrobe  alone was made with teak wood and the other two doors and  boxes were made with MDF Board and painted with  wooden line.  Further reported that the wardrobe and the TV stand were affected with fungus and the  teak wood used to make the hands of sofa set shows damaged.  Further bottom portion also became damaged.  Hence from the expert report, we can realize that all the  furniture delivered by OP to complainant are not in a condition to use and are defective in nature.

   Further it is to be noted that  OP has not entered into  the witness box and given evidence to substantiate his version.  Since the  contentions of OP in this version were denied by the complainant, OP should have proved his contentions.  Mere pleadings in the version is not sufficient to prove his version, especially the  commissioner has reported the defect of the furniture supplied by him.  Hence in the absence of any corroborative evidence from the side of OP, we are of the view that the furniture supplied by OP  is not  according to the order   placed by the complainant.  Hence there is deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

       In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.3,25,000/- to complainant towards the price of the furniture supplied after taking back them.  Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation  expense to the complainant.  Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the  order.  Failing which Rs.3,25,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per  provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Sales order dtd.3/1/18

A2&A3- Receipt voucher  dtd.5/2/18,9/4/18

A4- lawyer notice

A5-Acknowledgment card

C1&C20 commission report and Expert report

B1- sales order

PW1 –Nalinakshan.M.V- complainant

PW2-Sudhamani.P-Adv.Commissioner

Sd/                                                                            Sd/                                             Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                      MEMBER                                       MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                      Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

eva         

                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

                                                       ASSISTANT  REGISTRAR