BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.10/2009

Between

Complainant : Francis Mathew

Thannickal House,

Maryland P.O,

Minachil Taluk,

Katanadu Village.

(By Adv: Jaison Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : Thomas Ulahannan,

Managing Director,

Mariya Furniture Mart,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Johney Alex)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased one set of furniture from the opposite party, in which 2 single chairs, 3 seated setty and a teapoy. The complainant paid Rs.35,000/- for the opposite party. At the time of purchase of the furniture, the opposite party assured the complainant that it is made up of rosewood. The said furniture were transported in a lorry to the complainant's residence. While transporting it, the furnitures slided through the side body of the lorry, the portion in which the furniture was in contact with the lorry is seen in white colour. So the complainant contacted with the expert carpenters and revealed that the furniture were not made up of rosewood. It was made by low quality designed woods and polished in the colour of rosewood. The matter was informed to the opposite party. But the opposite party avoided the complainant. The complainant constrained to send a lawyer notice on 10/10/2008. But the opposite party never replied for the same. So the petition is filed for getting compensation for the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party for supplying the low quality furniture and also for deficiency in service.

2. The opposite party filed written version and stated that the complainant visited opposite party's showroom before the purchase of the furniture. At that time, several furniture made up of several woods were seen and he convinced the things from and another variety of wood, Rs.35,000/- was paid for the same. These types of chairs are built up with outside portion in rose wood and inside portion with another material. There were several furnished and unfinished chairs and setties in the workshop of the opposite party. Every things were seen and understood by the complainant. The furniture which are completely built up with rosewood worth Rs.40,000/- and this matter was told to the complainant at the time of purchase. At the time of transporting the furniture, the opposite party packs it with sponge of 2 inch stiffness. So the paint or polish will not spoil. The opposite party cannot supply these set of furniture made up of rosewood for Rs.35,000/- and the matter was informed to the complainant also. The inner portion of the furniture was built with another type of wood which was convinced to the complainant at the time of purchase. The complainant utilized the furniture more than one year. Now he is intended to get new model of furniture fully made up in rosewood. So this petition is filed as experimental.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any unfair trade practice committed by the complainant and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party.

5. The POINT:- The petition is filed for getting back the amount paid by the complainant for the low quality furniture supplied by the opposite party and also for deficiency in service. The complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the bill for the sofa set and the teapoy. As per the complainant the opposite party cheated the complainant assuring that the purchased sofa set and teapoy were made up of rose wood. As per the complainant, the furniture supplied by the opposite party is not completely made up with rosewood. When it was transported to the complainant's residence, the portion of the furniture contacted with the side body of the lorry and were seen colour changed. So he contacted with expert carpenters and revealed that the material is not rosewood, the furniture were coloured as rosewood. As per the opposite party, they are making furniture with rosewood and "Anjili" wood together. In these type of furniture, the outside portion is made up in rosewood and the inside portion with another wood. The matter was convinced by the complainant when he visited the showroom of the opposite party. So an amount of Rs.35,000/- was given by the complainant as cost for the furniture which are made up of rosewood outside and another wood inside. Anyhow the opposite party admitted the delivery of the material and also the bill paid by the complainant. If the material supplied by the opposite party with outside portion rosewood and if it is contacted with the side body of the lorry, the colour of the portion contacted with the lorry will not disappear. So we think that the version of the opposite party is not believable. As per the complainant, the outside portion is not made up of rosewood, because the colour is changed when contacted with the side body of the lorry. The furniture were using by the complainant for his residence for the last one year. The lawyer notice was issued only on 10/10/2008. The furniture supplied by the opposite party is not made up of original rosewood and which is an unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party. So we think that the amount paid by the complainant would be returned by taking back the furniture. Rs.5,000/- can be reduced because the furniture were at the complainant's residence for the last one year. The market value of the furniture is reduced because it already expired one year. So Rs.30,000/- can be given to the complainant. So we think that it is proper to give Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for the cost of the furniture.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand) to the complainant as the cost of the furniture after taking back the old furniture and Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Francis Mathew

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Bill for the Sofa set and teapoy dated 04/03/2008.

Ext.P2 - Copy of Lawyer notice dated 10/10/2008

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil