IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of July, 2017.
Filed on 17/11/2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George, President
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.335/15
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
K.G.John Sri. Babu George
S/o Geevarughese Proprietor, Far East Trading Est
Kanipparambil, Cheruthana PO (Olive Furnitures)
Harippad, Karthikappally Sathrathil Building, KP Road Kayamkulam-690502.
(By Adv. M. Prasad) (By Adv. Aravind Ghosh
&Sonu S.Uthaman) & Regi V. George)
O R D E R
SMT ELIZABETH GEORGE ( PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased furniture for Rs. 80,000/- from the opposite party on 22/11/2013. Among the items purchased one Kid’s study desk worth Rs.6500/- and Wardrobe-4 door worth Rs.17,000/- became useless because of fungous and thereby the dresses and other items kept in the wardrobe also damaged. Complainant contacted the opposite party several times and opposite party tried to clean it by using some chemicals. Due to the use of highly poisonous chemical by the opposite party the complainant and his granddaughter got illness and they were admitted in the hospital for the treatment. On 18/6/15 complainant again informed the opposite party about the fungus in the furniture and opposite party promised to replace those items but they did not turned up. The furniture supplied by the opposite party inferior quality. Alleging defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:
The furniture supplied to the complainant were inspected by him and purchased with satisfaction. The complaint is filed after 2 years of purchase. The furniture got fungous due to the carelessness and negligence of the complainant. On getting knowledge about the fungus the opposite party applied terminator in very low quantity. Complainant was asked to open the windows for some hours. There was no defect in the furniture as alleged by the complainant.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A5. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The advocate commissioner was appointed and commission report produced and marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner was examined as CW1.
4.Points for considerations are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5.It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased wardrobe-4 door for Rs.17,000/- and Kid’s study desk for Rs.6500/- from the opposite party on 22/11/2013. According to the complainant the said furniture purchased from the opposite party were of cheap quality and it damaged due to fungous. Complainant alleged in the complaint that whenever he made complaint about it before the opposite party they will send employees for using highly poisonous chemical and due to the breathing of it the complainant and her granddaughter got illness and they were admitted in the hospital. Complainant has not produced any hospital records before the Forum to prove such allegation. Opposite party filed version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. But they admitted that on getting knowledge about the complaint of the furniture the employee of the opposite party went to the house of the complainant and applied terminator in low quantity. Complaint is filed within two years of purchase. So the question of limitation is not applicable. An advocate commissioner was appointed at the instance of the complainant. The commission report produced is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 commission report it is stated that Sn ward robe-sâ FÃm `mK§fnepw ]q¸Â ]nSn¨v Ccn¡p¶Xn\m ZpÀKÔw DÅXpamIp¶p. Sn ward robe ]qÀ®ambpw ]q¸Â ]nSn¨ncn¡p¶Xn\m BbXv D]tbmKn¡phm³ Ignbm¯ AhØbnemWv. Sn study desk s³ ]e `mK§fnepw ]q¸Â ]nSn¨v shfp¯ncn¡p¶Xmbn ImWp¶p. Sn study desk \pw ZpÀKÔw DÅXmIp¶p. Sn study desk Dw ]q¸Â ]nSn¨v ZpÀKÔw DÅXn\m D]tbmKn¡phm³ Ignbm¯ AhØbnemWv. So it is clear that the ward robe and study desk became useless because of fungous. According to the complainant the dresses kept in the ward robe damaged and it caused much financial loss to the complainant. Advocate Commissioner noticed that the cloth items kept in the ward robe still seen fungous affected. But complainant did not produce the bills in order to prove the value of damaged items. At the same time we are convinced that the ward robe and kid’s study desk became damaged and useless within a short period of purchase and it amounts to defect in service of the opposite party. Hence we are of opinion that complainant is entitled to get refund of the value of ward robe and kid’s study desk.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund the sum of Rs.23,500/- which they had received from the complainant towards price of ward robe and kid’s study desk to the complainant and take back the furniture supplied to him. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and Rs. 2000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Failing which opposite party is directed to give Rs.23,500/- with 9% interest from the date complaint till realization.
The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2017.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George, President
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member
Appendix
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1-K.G.John(Witness)
Ext.A1-Copy of invoice No.1128 dtd 22/11/13 for Rs.80,000/-
Ext.A2-Copy of lawyers notice dtd 17/7/15
Ext.A3-postal receipt
Ext.A4-AD card
Ext.A5-photographs
CW1-Adv.P.S.Anaghan(Court witness)
C1-Commission Report
Evidence of opposite party:
RW1- Babu George(Witness)
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F
Typed by :S/
Compared by:-
