DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM DHARWAD

District Consumer Forum,Civil Court Campus,Dharwad

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/602

Dr. Rajendra T. Patil
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Managing Director, Siddanth Wooden Works Pvt. Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Shekharagowda Patil
2. Veena D Jadav
3. Vijayalakshmii M


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

REASONS POINTS 1&2: Purchase of four door frames and shutters by the complainant from the respondent is not in dispute. But as per complainant the respondent has supplied second quality of wood/unseasoned/raw wood as such few days after fixation cracks were noticed and same were widened subsequently. On that ground he has sought some relief.
At the time of argument it was argued for complainant that, teak wood was ordered for supply. Complainant has produced an invoice dtd.19-12-2007, it is issued by the respondent. As per that invoice the total cost of those materials is Rs.16560/- inclusive of VAT. As per that invoice it was agreed to supply four door frames and shutters of FJ hardwood. In that invoice nothing is mentioned about supply of teak wood. Moreover, neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit it is stated about supply of teak wood so, such contention of complainant cannot be accepted. Payment of Rs.10000/- advance is not in dispute. But on what date it was paid is not clear from the complaint. Because, as per complainant advance Rs.10000/- was given on 18-9-2007, no document is produced for complainant to prove it. As per the respondent advance Rs.10000 was given on 18-11-2007 but not on 18-9-2007.


As per complainant the respondent estimated the works for Rs.33780/- inclusive of supplying, fixing, transportation and VAT @12.5%. Complainant has produced some description and amount of those doors and frames. It is dtd.18-11-2007. that document is signed by one Sachin M.Melvanki. it is not clearly stated by the complainant how that Sachin M.Melvanki is concerned to the respondent. Whether he is a partner or proprietor of respondent wood works, not clearly stated. In that document details are not mentioned about fixation, transportation and VAT etc., only cost is mentioned. But as per an invoice dtd.19-12-2007 the cost of those materials is only Rs.16560/-.

The complainant has not produced any document about payment of the balance amount, however there is no dispute about payment of amount and supply of those materials. Only it is to be seen whether the materials supplied by the respondent are of second quality. An affidavit of one Neelkantha s/o.Rajaram Kumbar a carpenter of Dandeli is got filed for complainant. As per his deposition the doors and shutters supplied by respondent looked attractive in the beginning but within few days it was noticed that, they were of inferior quality and that wood was not seasoned. As per his deposition he fixed those doors and frames along with his assistants but, the complainant in his complaint at para.4 it is stated that, those doors and frames were fixed by the respondent workers, to that extent the affidavit of carpenter Neelkanth goes contrary to the pleading of complainant. Complainant claims to have issued two notices to respondent, one on 5-6-08 and another one on 7-7-08. In the first notice, wherein stated that, within one month inferior quality of wood was noticed, if it is so such cracks may have been noticed by the complainant in the month of January 2008 even then immediately complainant has not given any notice against respondent. He has taken nearly 6 months to issue notice. If cracks were noticed within one month from the date of fixation, nothing had prevented complainant for issuing notice to respondent at the earliest. The learned counsel for respondent referring to the terms & conditions 3,4 and 5 of the invoice it was argued that, no complaint was made within 7 days of receipt of those shutters and doors as such it is to be deemed that they are of good quality. Only on such conditions it cannot be said that, there cannot be any complaint subsequently.


The complainant has produced four photos and one CD about the cracks in the doors and shutters, even respondent has not denied about such cracks but respondent has contended that, the wood being hard wood cracks are likely to occur due to climatic and other conditions. In the complaint the complainant has not specifically stated as to what type of wood he purchased from the respondent. Even it is not specifically proved by the complainant that, a seasoned hard wood never gets crack even in any climatic point of view or other reasons. The respondent has contended that such cracks have occurred due to wrong fitting by the carpenters of respondent even such fact is not specifically denied by the complainant.

Though the carpenter in his affidavit has deposed that, the doors and frames are of inferior quality but, while fixing them to the house of complainant did he not noticed about quality, nothing is stated by him. Moreover, whether he is a competent person to certify the nature of the wood, for that also nothing is produced. If this deponent had notice inferior quality of wood after few days from fixation same could have been seen by him even at the time of fixation.
To that extent the affidavit of deponent is not clear. In view of these reasons it is held that no deficiency in service is noticed on the part of respondent as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence points 1&2 are answered in Negative. Point.3: In view of the finding given on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following

O R D E R

The complaint is dismissed. However the parties are left with their own costs. (Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 26th March 2009)