SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.76,000/-, to the complainant and a compensation for mental agony of Rs.50,000/- along with cost to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint:
The complainant and OP are relatives and residing in Morazha . The complainant is having 5 cents of property in Morazha ,Andoor Muncipality. The complainant is intended to construct a house in her property with the help of Andoor Municipality. Then the OP approached the complainant and he agreed that the carpentry work of her house was done by him. At the time of oral agreement the OP assured that the wooden used for the windows and frames are in good quality. Moreover he assured that 21 ½ cubic foreign venga wood used for the carpentry works. On believing the words of OP the complainant entrusted the carpentry work to OP and she paid Rs.76,000/- for the price of the windows and frames. Thereafter the OP showed some wood to the complainant and handed over one piece of sample wood also. OP stated that 3 layer window(1)- 2 ¾ cubic,3 layer kitchen window(1) 2 cubic, 3 layer kitchen frame (kattila) 1 ¾ cubic, bedroom frame(2 in Nos) 3 cubic and front door frame(1) 2 cubic for total raw materials of 21 ½ cubic items delivered to complainant and all the items taken by OP for the carpentry work. At last the complainant understood that the raw materials purchased by the OP for the carpentry work is not foreign venga but for low quality of nadan kara venga wood. Moreover the complainant enquired the place where OP purchased the raw materials, she confirmed that the product taken by the OP from Andikklam wood mill at Taliparamba. In that industry only the items sold are nadan venga not obtained any type of foreign venga from that mill. The price of nadan venga is very lower than foreign venga. The complainant is only a house wife and she is not aware of the wood items. The OP is the proprietor of E.K.Wood work and he shows a sample of foreign venga piece to the complainant and she believes that the windows and kattila were made in foreign venga. But after receiving the price of foreign venga the complainant is cheated by the OP for supplying red gumy substance nadan venga woods. Thereafter the complainant filed a petition before CPIM party and the OP is not ready to settle the matter. Then on 2/4/2021 the complainant filed a petition before SHO Taliparamba. Both parties present before the SHO Taliparamba but the OP is not amenable to settle the matter. So the act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to OP, and OP entered appearance before the commission and filed his written version. The OP contended that there is no connection with the complainant and not taken any financial assistance from the complainant also. For the last several years the complainant and OP is not in good terms and to harass the OP the complainant created a false story against the OP before the relatives and friends. Moreover, this complaint is filed to earn unjust and ill motivated amount from the OP. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Thereafter the complainant filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property and to calculate the value of wood used in the carpentry work of windows and kattila, the type of raw materials used, the present work of the items in the site etc. The Commission appointed one Mr.Prabhakaran as the expert commissioner. Then the expert commissioner inspected the site and report filed before the commission and marked as Ext.C1. The complainant and OP filed the objection to the expert report. Thereafter another expert one Mr.Sudhir.P is appointed as the expert commissioner . The said expert commissioner also inspected the site and filed report before the commission marked as Ext.C2. Both sides filed their objection to the expert commissioner’s report Ext.C2 also.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7, MO1 and Exts.C1&C2 were marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence produced. Complainant filed argument note also.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. She was cross examined as PW1 by OP also. According to the complainant the documents Exts.A1 to A7, MO1 and Exts.C1&C2 were marked on her part to substantiate her case. Exts.A1 is the receipt issued by the OP to complainant stated that the paid amount is Rs.76,000/- and the balance noted as Rs.14,000/-. Ext.A2 is the complaint filed by the complainant before SHO Taliparamba dtd.2/4/2021. Ext.A3 is the original receipt issued by SHO Taliparamba dtd.2/4/2021 regarding the complaint filed by the complainant. Ext.A4 shows the cash bill of pipe 202 CK All cutting charge extra purchased by the complainant dtd.28/1/2021. Ext.A5 is the net value of foreign venga and Burma Irool Kattila padi purchased by the complainant dtd.9//4/2021. Ext.A6 shows the tax invoice dtd.5/3/2022 issued by A.M.Timbers for the items purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.46,018/-. In Ext.A7 is the tax invoice dtd.5/3/2022 issued by Central wood Industries, the items purchased by the complainant. The complainant also produced MO1 before the commission ie, the sample wood issued by OP. In the evidence PW1 also stated that MO1 മരക്കഷണം നിങ്ങളുടെ കൈയ്യിൽ പരാതി ബോധിപ്പിക്കുന്നതിന് മുൻപേ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു? ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു.ഈ കേസ്സിൽ ഉൾപ്പെട്ട മരവും MO1ഉം തമ്മിൽ വ്യത്യാസമുണ്ടെന്ന് എപ്പോഴാണ് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്? അന്നു തന്നെ മനസ്സിലായി. Sample ആയിട്ട് ഒരു piece മാത്രമേ കൊണ്ടുവന്നിട്ടുണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളൂ? അതെ. (MO1). So it is clear that the sample wood given by OP to the complainant is not the same wood made in the carpentry work of the raw materials used in the construction of windows and kattila of complainant’s house. The expert commissioners also noted that the woods used in the carpentry works of windows and kattilas of complainant’s house is different from that of sample wood(MO1). In Exts.C1&C2 noted that the rate of foreign venga wood is different from that of Nadan kara venga wood. As per Ext.C2 report the expert commissioner noted that the complainant should keep some items of wooden articles kept idle in the secured place. The items are 1(a) Kattila (4 in Nos) (front kattila -1, kitchen kattila-1, bed room kattila-2 in Nos. 1(b) window steel pipe 6 in Nos.(front long -1, kitchen-1, bed room-4, (c) ventilator-1. The above said items 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) are in lower quality. Then the complainant purchased high quality of wood items from other industries as per Exts.A6&A7 receipts. Moreover, the expert calculated the difference in price of the raw materials also. In the version and at the time evidence the OP contended that the Ext.A1 document is not issued by him. The contents and signature in Ext.A1 is not of OP and it is a forged document created subsequently during the time of evidence. OP has filed petition to send Ext.A1 to forensic laboratory to compare with the admitted signature in vakkalath and specimen signature. But the OP has not taken any steps to prove the same. Except the version no other evidence or documents from the side of OP to prove their defense.
According to complainant, the OP received the amount from the complainant and failed to supply the foreign venga wood to the complainant instead he supplied only nadan venga red gumy substance woods. So the OP is directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. Then the complainant constrained to purchase another good quality wood items from other industries and she incurred Rs.47,414/- for that wood items. The act of OP caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of both OP. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue Nos.2&3:
As discussed above the OP is received the amount from complainant but he failed to supply the foreign venga wood materials to complainant. The OP made carpentry work of the wood as lower quality Nadan kara venga wood. As per the Ext.A1 it clearly shows that she paid Rs.76,000/- to OP. But the OP supplied lower quality wood then the complainant was constrained to purchase good raw materials from A.M.Timbers as shown in Exts.A6 &A7. Then the OP is directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 76,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.76,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.76,000/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings the opposite party is at liberty to take back 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) items of property from the complainant.
Exts:
A1- Receipt issued by OP to complainant
A2- complaint filed by the complainant before SHO Taliparamba dtd.2/4/21
A3- Receipt issued by SHO Taliparamba
A4-Cash bill dtd.28/1/21
A5&A6 -Tax invoice dtd.28/1/21, 5/3/22
A7- Tax invoice dtd 5/3/22
C1&C2-commission report
MO1-Sample piece wood
PW1- Reetha-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
