D.O.F:23/08/2016
D.O.O:30/11/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.224/2016
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Jasmine.K, aged 42 years,
W/o Abdul Salam,
R/at Sana House, Choyyamkode P.O. : Complainant
Nileshwar (Via)
(Adv : K.V. Ramachandran)
And
N.V. Shobha,
Naduvile Vtil
W/o. Karunakaran,
Proprietor, Luxury Apolostory,
Malabar Complex, Choyyamkode, (P.O) : Opposite Party.
Via – Nileshwar.
(Adv: P.Padmanabhan)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act.
The case of the complainant is that she joined as a subscriber of monthly installment scheme for furniture started by Opposite Party. She paid Rs. 14,000/- as on 20/10/2014 and bought a wooden coat. As promised wooden coat is delivered assuring of high quality and standard of value for money. But after some days it is noticed that its wooden frames found broken it is informed to opposite Party but opposite Party did not respond. Any way its replacement is delayed. It was represented that it is made up of teak tree. But really of teak no chance for damage. By promising the supply wooden coat, of good quality wood the opposite party supplied low quality wooden coat, there is serious deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite Party, by which the complainant suffered financial loss and therefore claimed refund of Rs. 14,000/- compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and cost of litigation Rs. 6000/-.
2. The opposite Party filed written version denying the allegations. According to opposite Party she is running a shop by name Luxury furniture at Choyyamkode by availing bank loan. Her husband is suffering heart ailment and is under treatment. Business is run by purchase of furniture from Payyannur and their re-selling as it is and no furniture work is carried out in her shop. Accasia trees are used for the coat. Costly wooden coat is priced more than Rs. 30,000/- no false representation is made claiming it as with teak tree. The photo does not relate to wooden coat supplied by Opposite Party and complainant is not a consumer.
3. The Expert commissioner filed report. The Opposite Party filed IA 235/2019 to set aside the report. But report is remitted to answer the objections. Further report is filed dated 13/06/2019. Further report shows that wooden coat cannot be put to any use its support broken, damage is detailed on its head side and legs. It is made with Acacia tree except 8 runners for which Vangana tree is used.
4. No oral evidence for complainant Ext C1 and C2 marked. The Opposite Party adduced oral evidence cross examined as Dw1. No documents from Opposite Party.
5. In view of rival contentions the following issues arise for consideration in this case
a) Whether complainant proved that Opposite Party supplied the particular wooden coat by misrepresenting it was made out of teak tree, whether said wooden coat suffer from damages due to any negligence and whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party ?
b) Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so for what reliefs?
6. According to complainant she purchased the wooden coat from Opposite Party on 20/10/2014 by paying Rs. 14,000/-. The complaint is filed on 23/08/2016 after about two years. Though complainant says that defect of frame is noticed after few days but she waited for two years to file complaint there is no case for complainant that Opposite Party promised as guaranteed its warranty for a particular period or product is covered by any warrantee of replacement.
7. It is true that complainant took steps by way of commission to prove defects. Commissioner filed report objections were filed. It was remitted to answer objections. Further report is filed marked as Ext C1, C2. The Opposite Party has taken objection that identify of wooden coat supplied and wooden coat inspected by commissioner are different complainant has no case that wooden coat is kept idle from the very beginning due to defects but no explanation as to why complaints is filed at a belated stage.
8. The Complainant has no case that wooden coat suffers from any manufacturing defects. Her case is that Opposite Party misrepresented that it is made with teak tree which could have been well verified and confirmed then and there before payment on managed delivery of it. Further no case for complainant that Opposite Party offered any warranty for the product for any particular period. It is not sure commissioner verified the particular wooden coat supplied by Opposite Party since inspections is in 2017 and dates on 2019 where as its delivery is in 2014. No case for complainant that Opposite Party guaranteed replacement or refund of amount already period. There is no evidence relating to specific deficiency in service where in no warranty is given rather no service is being done since it is a resale without furniture works.
The complainant if at all purchased it in 2014, used for such a long period of more than two years, finally did not ask for any warranty no guaranteed warranty of replacement, no case that its damage is not rectified despite producing product with Opposite Party, that expert is not examined that there is no other oral documentary evidence relating to assurance or miss representations and complaint filed after a period of more than two years of cause of action, claim of complainant is not supported by any legal and acceptable evidence to prove the case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, complaint is thereby dismissed.
In the result complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
C1: Commission report Dt: 28/07/2017
C2: Inspection Report Dt: 13/06/2019
Witness Examined
DW1: Sobha.N.V
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
