Kerala

Idukki

CC/15/316

Mr.Divakaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Propriter Indroyal Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Benny Joseph

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 13.11.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.316/2015

Between

Complainant : Divakaran C.M.,

Chakkanikkunnel House,

Kumily, 1^st Mile, Attappallam P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Advs: Benny Joseph

& Sijimon K. Augustine)

And

Opposite Party : The Proprietor,

Indroyal Furniture Company (P) Ltd.,

M.C. Road, Ettumanoor P.O.,

Kottayam – 686 562.

(By Advs: P. Krishnan Kutty Nair,

Mohandas K. & Baijuraj)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased two bed room set containing bed 8014 box with storage, ward robe, side table, dressing table, centre table, sofa mapista etc. on 23.3.2015 from the opposite party after paying Rs.2,68,500/- through invoice Nos.1247, 1248, 1264. These furniture were delivered, assembled and installed by the staff of the opposite parties in the house of the complainant. After one month from the date of delivery of the above said furniture, it shows serious complaint such as cup boards are not sliding, cup board drawers are got struck, nut bolt and some other parts of the dressing table are loosen and fall down, middle wooden portion of the coats are broken and bended, dressing table damaged and not fit for use. Hence the complainant intimated the matter to opposite party and as a result, the technicians visited the house of the complainant after one month of intimation. Though they repaired some portions and

(cont....2)

- 2 -

took photographs of the damaged furniture and offered to replace it, they failed to do so. Again the complainant approached opposite party and after 1 ½ months the technicians again visited the house and temporarily done some works by replacing some parts and using some clamps, nuts, pieces of woods etc. Even after repeated demands to replace the damaged parts of the furniture, the opposite party did not turned up. Though the opposite party offered one year free guaranteed service, they did not keep their words and refused to replace or repair the entire damaged furniture.

 

Complainant further averred that the furniture sold to the complainant by the opposite party is of inferior quality and the opposite party is legally and morally bound to replace it. The opposite party assembled and installed all the above furniture in the house of the complainant are now not useful causing untold miseries, irreparable loss and damages to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in this matter. The entire furniture as per the invoice are delivered assembled and fitted by the technicians of the opposite party in the house of the complainant which is situated in Idukki District and within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence the complainant approached the Forum against the act of the opposite party and prayed for allowing relief such as to direct the opposite party to replace the entire damaged furniture discussed above or else direct the opposite party to return Rs.2,68,500/- being the purchase price of the furniture along with interest and damages and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by admitting the sale of the furniture as stated in the complaint. Opposite party further contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, since the manufacturers are not impleaded as a party. Opposite party further contended that, the complaint is not maintainable herein because the complainant purchased the furniture from their Ettumanoor outlet, which is in Kottayam District.

 

Opposite party further contended that the defects narrated in the complaint are only due to mishandling. The furniture was a discounted sale and the company cannot take any liability for the mishandling of the delicate furniture system after installation. The opposite party invariably

(cont....3)

- 3 -

issue warranty card to the customers for specified period and undertake repair of furniture if any specific defects but no replacement is even undertaken. In this case, the service persons of the opposite party attended the complainant and repaired whenever defects pointed out. Hence the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice cannot be sustainable. Opposite party further contended that from a reading of the complaint, it could be seen that the complainant is making use of the furniture and attempting to get back the cost price and compensation by filing the frivolous complaint, with ulterior motives in order to make illegal gain.

 

Along with the complaint, the complainant filed a petition for appointing a commissioner for inspecting the damaged furniture and to file a report. This petition allowed and an advocate commissioner appointed. The advocate commissioner filed report along with photographs of damaged furniture and its video as directed by the Forum. Opposite party filed detailed objection to the commission report. This petition was heard. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the complainant wanted only an advocate commissioner instead of an expert commissioner, who will bring out the technical truth. The engineering defects in wood or MDF can only be ascertained by an expert in wood technology with special reference to treated rubber wood. The counsel further argued that the contents in the commission report dated 28.3.2017 are against facts and basically incorrect, biased with an ulterior motive to totally help the complainant. Hence the commission report is liable to be set asided.

 

After hearing both parties and by evaluating the points of arguments put forwarded by both the parties, the Forum is of a considered view that the said commission application is only to assess the defects of the furniture in question. To ascertain certain defects of the furniture, no expert opinion is needed. Even a layman can assess the defect of certain furniture which is in common use, without having any expertise in this field. A mere inspection is sufficient to find out the defects and quality of the materials which is used for manufacturing this furniture and its finishing. On the basis of the above observation, Forum dismissed the petition for setting aside the commission report.

(cont....4)

- 4 -

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P4 marked. Ext.P1 to P3 are copy of invoices having numbers 1247,1248 and 1264 respectively dated 23.3.2015. Ext.P4 is the photographs.

 

The Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW2 and Ext.C1 commission report, photograph and CD, C1(a), C1(a)2, C1(a)3, C1(a)4, C1(a)5 photographs are marked.

 

From the opposite side, one Jobin George, Sales Manager of opposite party examined as DW1. Ext.R1 proforma of warranty and Ext.R2 is the print out of mobile photographs are marked.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsel for both parties and had gone through the documents. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased furniture from opposite party showroom at Ettumanoor on 23.3.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,68,500/-. The Ext.P1 to P3 vouchers are evident for this transaction. As per records, all these furniture are delivered by the opposite party in their own vehicle to the premises of the complainant and fitted the furniture into respective rooms of the complainant's residential building by the technicians of the opposite party themselves. The delivery of the furniture and its installation was done by the opposite party and their service personnels. Hence the 1^st point put forwarded by the learned counsel for the opposite party regarding the question of jurisdiction cannot be sustainable and this point is found in favour of the complainant.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that immediately after the installation of furniture by the technical staff of the 1^st opposite party, almost all of the wooden furniture showed serious complaint and on intimation the experts of the opposite party company visited the scene and

(cont....5)

- 5 -

inspected each furniture and after convincing its defects took photographs. One or two times they attempted to cure the defects. But the defects of the furniture cannot be cured due to low cost materials used. Even if it is repaired by the technicians of the opposite party, it cannot be made useful. The opposite party and their people fitted the furniture in the house of the complainant as per the measurements and design of the room, are totally damaged and it caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. To prove his case, complainant filed a petition for appointing an advocate commissioner and it was allowed after detailed hearing of both sides and after considering the points of objection, the Forum found that an advocate commissioner can assess the nature and condition of the furniture fitted in a room. Here the report filed by the advocate commissioner accepted and considered as a part of evidence.

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that it has come in evidence that the items were purchased in connection with the house warming ceremony of the complainant and a get together was conducted. When large gathering of friends and relatives including a number of children had participated and alleged defects arose due to mishandling and wrong transportation and reloading techniques after its installation. The learned counsel further argued that each and every sentences in the commission report are against facts and truth. The commissioner had prepared a biased, unilateral report totally to help the complainant. The counsel further pointed out that the imported Medium Density Fibre (MDF) board laminated with glass finish polyurethane used in this furniture whenever it is required, which is brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of purchase. This material is not manufactured by this opposite party, but it is imported. As per the settled law, liability, if any, can be fastened on the manufacture of MDF and the opposite party. Moreover, only a technical evaluation in an appropriate laboratory could reveal the quality of MDF. Out of the 7 items, commissioner failed to bring out any manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any amount by way of price paid and the interest or compensation.

 

On going through the evidence on record, it is seen that the main issue pointed out by the opposite party such as the maintainability

(cont....6)

- 6 -

regarding the jurisdiction and non-appointment of expert commissioner cannot be sustainable. Because a common man can assess the damages of the furniture which is normally using in a house. Here also it is admitted fact that the furniture in question are of common using ones and not a hi-tech furnisher. Hence the observation of an Advocate commissioner in this mater is more than sufficient. Moreover, on perusing Ext.R2, the photographs, which was admittedly taken by the technical experts of the opposite party, who was present at the time of inspection, it is seen that almost all the defect noted by them is corroborating with the findings of the commissioner.

 

At the time of argument, the learned counsel pointed out that the materials which is used for the manufacturing, the furniture are of MDF, which is manufactured by some others, hence the opposite parties are not liable. Except this contention, no specified or cogent evidence is produced by the opposite party to strengthen their plea. Hence absence of clear and plausible evidence, the contention of the opposite party also cannot be considered in this issue also.

 

In this case, opposite party has filed detailed objection against the commission report and also opposite party has strongly challenged the appointment of a person who has not any expertise in this field. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that from the side of the opposite party, no effort has been taken to appoint an expert in this field for a fair, reasonable and believable observation for substantiating their plea. It is also noted that since the opposite party is a renowned people in the field of manufacturing and selling of wooden furniture and having various outlets almost all places of Kerala and outside, they can easily produce an expert in the filed for establishing their contention or for countering the contention of the advocate commissioner. Here also opposite party miserably failed to produce any evidence before the Forum for strengthening or fortifying their plea.

 

On overall evaluation of the evidence in this case, Forum is of a considered view that, the complainant is succeed in establishing his averments with clear and cogent evidence. On the basis of above discussion, Forum found that the furniture delivered and fitted or installed

(cont....7)

- 7 -

by the opposite party in the premises of the complainant as per invoice Nos. 1247, 1248 and 1264 having damages which cannot be cured even after the various attempts of the technicians of the opposite party and the act of the opposite party in selling and installing such type of defective material amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

Hence the complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to replace the furniture as per invoice Nos.1247, 1248 and 1264 dated 23.3.2015, Bed Side Table (8014), Ward robe (8014), centre table and sofa set (2+2+1+1) or else opposite party is directed to refund the balance amount by deducting Rs.4350/- (bed side table), Rs.39,500/- (ward robe)

and Rs.64,000/- (sofa mapista) from the total amount of Rs.2,68,500/-, i.e., 2,68,500 – 1,07,850, Rs.1,60,650/- along with 12% interest from the date of complaint and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of September, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....8)

 

- 8 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - C.M. Divakaran.

PW2 - Babichen V. George.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Jobin George.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Exts.P1 to P3 - copy of invoices having numbers 1247,1248 and 1264 respectively

dated 23.3.2015.

Ext.P4 - photographs.

Ext.C1 - commission report, photograph and CD,

C1(a), C1(a)2, C1(a)3, C1(a)4, C1(a)5 - photographs

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - proforma of warranty and

Ext.R2 - print out of mobile photographs

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT