O R D E R
By Smt.Sreeja.S, Member :
The complainant purchased wooden sheet manufactured by 1st opposite party from their exclusive agent 2nd opposite party on 14/11/11, 13/1/12, 2/2/12 for a total amount of Rs.33,060/- paid vide bill No.3047, 3104, 3129 respectively. It was the 2nd opposite party, who made believed the complainant that those wooden sheets are of best quality and chemically treated having high strength, durability and waterproof and same is having lifelong guarantee as well. So the complainant purchased the same and constructed almirah, interior decoration work and sanctum and this work cost an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards labour and materials. These works are carried out under specific agreement and all the amounts were also paid. After 10 months some black spots were appeared on the rub wood panels and its spread to all over the wooden sheet. So he contacted the 2nd opposite party and they inspected the work. They informed that the black spots are fungus affected area which is the defect of the specific latch of wooden sheet and issue will be settled by them for which they sought time. But the 1st and 2nd opposite parties never acted upon their assurance. So he repeatedly approach them but were in veil. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and hence this complaint filed.
2.On receiving complaint, notice served properly to the opposite parties. Opposite party appeared through counsel and filed its version. The version of 1st OP is as follows: 1st opposite party is a company manufacturing various furniture, panel board, beam etc. with rubber wood. 1st OP never manufactured the type of plywood as stated in the complaint. The opposite parties never canvass orders from the public. Rubco never made believe the complainant about the water proof wooden sheet suitable for interior decoration resisting termites etc. Along with each and every such sheets an instruction letter also provided stating the upkeep of the wooden sheet and usage of anti-termites solution in the wall before fixing the wooden sheet. It also states that the wood shall not be used in continuously wet and humid condition. The opposite parties are not liable for the use of sheet against such instruction. There is no defect in any batch of product manufactured by 1st OP. The use of wood in wet condition would cause leaching of anti-insects and fungal chemicals and same would result fungal infection. The quality controller in charge directly inspected and noticed that the wooden sheet used in dry area survived intact and the improper use of the wooden sheet caused the defects. The 1st OP is a subsidiary of government owned company and never deceived the complainant in any manner and prayed for dismissal.
3.Points for consideration are:
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2)Relief and cost
4. Complainant produced four documents and marked as Exts.P1 to P4. Ext.P1 Bill dtd. 14/11/11, Ext.P2 Bill dtd. 13/1/12, Ext.P3 bill dtd.2/2/12, Ext.P4 Agreement dt.14/11/11. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. From the side of opposite parties one document is produced as Ext.R1guidelines. Sample piece of the product is marked as MO1.
5.Points: The case of the complainant is that he purchased rub wood panel vide Exts.P1 to P3 bills. The first and foremost dispute raised by the opposite parties is that they never manufactured the wooden panel as stated in the complaint. It true that Exts.P1 to P3 is silent regarding the manufacturer of the goods. 1st OP has no case that 2nd OP is not its dealer. Furthermore they admits that they provided service of technical staff to clear the doubts regarding fixing the panel. Moreover they further admit that the quality controller in charge directly convinced that the panel works done in the dry area has no defects at all. Hence the case of the complainant is that they purchased rub wood from 2nd OP manufactured by 1st OP stands proved. Ext.C1 commission report also reads that the panel works was done by rub wood.
6.In this case the specific allegation leveled against the quality of product and losses suffered by the complainant. To prove the same expert commissioner has been appointed and commission report marked as Ext.C1.Ext.C1 categorically prove the present condition of the wood works in dispute. It is to be noted that the respective opposite parties and their counsel were present. Hence the commissioner reported the factual position by properly availing the assistance of the concerned counsel. Ext.C1 carries more weightage and proving the case leveled by the complainant. Ext.P4 proves the labour cost for the work amounting Rs.35,000/-. Since nothing has been produced to prove the cost of polish materials the same is not considered by this Commission. Further the argument leveled by the OP regarding disparity in the date of purchase of stamp paper and execution of agreement having some force and same is also considered. Hence we are of the view that the complainant established a cogent case before this Commission.
7.In the result complaint is allowed and hereby direct 1st opposite party to pay (33,060 + 35,000) Rs.68,060/- (Rupees Sixty eight thousand and sixty only) back to the complainant. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing in which the total amount carries interest of 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. =
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 21st day of June 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja.S, Member C.T.Sabu, President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Bill dtd. 14/11/11, Ext.P2 Bill dtd. 13/1/12, Ext.P3 bill dtd.2/2/12, Ext.P4 Agreement dt.14/11/11
Opposite Parties Exhibit
Ext.R1guidelines
Ext.C1 – Commission report
MO1 -Sample piece of the product
Id/- Member
