DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of April 2023
Filed on: 23/01/2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC No 36/2020
COMPLAINANT
Mr. Kurian Kappen, Proprietor, Saints Interior Fit-Out,10/781-A, Kappil , Kanjiramattom, Thodupuzha-685585
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1.M/s Noble Laminates Pvt. Ltd.,Corner & Hari Vallabh Society, 201 Hiloni Business Centre, Near city Bathek Road, Kapdivas ,Makkarpura, Navoda, Ahammedbad-382330 Represented by its Managing Director Mr. Pankaj.
(o.p 1rep. by Adv.S.S.Aravind, Kombara Marriot, 1st Floor, RRA 105 A, St.Benedict Road, West End Ernakulam North P.O., Cochi-682 018)
2. M/s Riolam, 47/780 A, Chalikkavattom , Vennala P.O, Kochi-682028 , Represented by its Managing Partner Mr. Anil VG
(o.p 2 rep.by Adv.Alias M.Cherian, Easwara Iyer Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 035, Cochin-682 035)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
A complaint was lodged in accordance with Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint outlines the following facts: The complainant is involved in self-employment as an interior decorator to sustain their livelihood. The complaint purchased 42 paper-based laminate sheets from the dealer (2nd opposite party) who represents the 1st opposite party. These laminate sheets were used in various parts of the complainant's house, including the kitchen cupboard, ceiling, and cot. However, approximately one month after installation, the complainant noticed the formation of bubbles all over the laminate sheets. The problem worsened, with water discharging from the sheets. The complainant promptly informed the opposite parties, but they took no action. Concerned about the water affecting the plywood as well, the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party, who replaced the laminate sheets. Subsequently, the complainant incurred expenses of Rs. 1,13,460/- for labour charges and accessories to replace the laminates. Notably, the 1st opposite party continued to send defective laminates to the complainant, despite receiving numerous complaints from other customers about the same issue. Some defective stock was also returned to the 1st opposite party, as indicated by a letter dated 16.06.2019 from the 2nd opposite party. The bubble formation on all the laminate sheets shortly after installation is a result of a manufacturing defect in the sheets supplied by the opposite parties. The supply of substandard and defective laminate sheets constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The complainant incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 1,13,460/- for the replacement of the entire laminate sheets, but despite raising the matter with the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, they have not reimbursed the amount spent.
The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,13,460/-, along with an interest rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchase until the amount is fully recovered. Additionally, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental distress, difficulties, and financial losses endured as a result of receiving inferior-quality laminates from the opposite parties and the cost of the legal proceedings.
2). Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notices and jointly filed their versions.
3). VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY
The 1st Opposite Party is a private limited company that manufactures digital and high-pressure decorative laminates, kitchen laminates, and industrial laminates. They have distributorship agreements with various entities across India and conduct business through these distributors. The distributors purchase the company's products and make direct payments to the company. They sell the products to individuals and retailers. The 1st Opposite Party is not involved in the transactions between the distributors and purchasers of the products. The distributors place orders with the company, which are fulfilled by the company. Dispute settlement and other quality-related issues are governed by the distributorship agreement. The 1st Opposite Party denies knowledge of the complainant's involvement in interior decoration works or self-employment. The complainant's purchase of laminate sheets from another party is unknown to the company. The 1st Opposite Party company clarifies that the complainant's selling of products to customers is solely the complainant's responsibility and has no connection to the company. The second opposite party is confirmed to be a distributor of the company, dealing with similar products from other brands as well. There has been no communication between the complainant and the first opposite party. No complaints from actual purchasers of the 1st Opposite Party’s products have been registered.
The 1st Opposite Party is not responsible for the fixture/installation of the products at end users' premises. This is handled by the purchasers, retailers, or other agencies. The 1st Opposite Party states that they have not sent any defective products to the complainant. Replacements are made according to the terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement.
The 1st Opposite Party denies any damages caused to the complainant's clients, stating that such damages are not attributable to their conduct. They assert that they do not engage in unfair methods or deceptive practices. No replacements have been made for the complainant by the company. Labour charges are borne by the parties using the products. The complainant is accused of colluding with the second opposite party to file the complaint. Disputes between the first and second opposite parties are being addressed separately. The complainant is seen as attempting to negotiate with the first opposite party under the support of the second opposite party.
4).VERSION OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY
The complainant is deemed not to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. They are conducting business through a firm and purchased goods from the opposite parties for the purpose of conducting their business and resale. Therefore, the complaint lacks jurisdiction and should be rejected.
The opposite parties confirm that the complainant purchased Mica materials from them. They deny the allegation that the Mica used by the complainant for furniture/fittings was subsequently damaged. According to them, the Mica supplied was of superior quality and showed no instances of damage.
The allegation of bubbles and moisture appearing on the Mica's surface after making the furniture is also denied. The opposite parties state that Mica is a hard substance that does not absorb water or form moisture or bubbles. They explain that the plywood used as the base material for the furniture can absorb water from atmospheric humidity, especially during the rainy season in Kerala.
The complainant did not seek any expert opinion regarding the cause of the alleged damage but made assumptions without any substantiation. The opposite parties deny the claim that the complainant incurred expenses for labour and replacing the Mica material. They argue that the complaint is baseless.
Furthermore, the complaint is not maintainable against the second opposite party, who is merely a dealer of the Mica product manufactured by the first opposite party. The first opposite party/manufacturer would be solely liable, if at all, for any manufacturing defects in the product.
5). Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-3.
Exhibit A-1. Copies of the cash bills dated (5 Nos.).
Exhibit A-2. Copies of the email communications between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party
Exhibit A-3. Copies of the complaints were sent to the 1st opposite party by the 2nd opposite party.
The 1st opposite party had filed 1 document .
A true copy of the distributorship agreement dated 03/10/2017.
The 2nd opposite party had filed 1 document that was marked as Exhibits-B-1.
Exhibit-B-1. Undertaking dated 24/10/2019 issued by the manufacturer/M/s. Noble
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
According to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, (d) "consumer" means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) 1[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 1[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;
2[Explanation: For the purposes of sub-clause (i), "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]
The specific contention of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,1986, and has specifically averred in their written versions to the same effect. The complainant even though claiming to ‘work for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment’ has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim. Furthermore, copies of the email communication (Exhibit A-2) and other complaints sent to the Opposite Parties show that the complainant is the proprietor of a firm by the name and style of Saints Interior Fit-Out having its website address as www.saintsinteriors.in. On visiting the website, it is seen that the Complainant’s firm has many employees including Project Managers, Supervisors, and Operators. Hence, the complainant would not come under the definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
In this light of the above circumstances, points Nos. (i), to (iv) are found against the complainant. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable, no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 28th day of April 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia TN., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1. Copies of the cash bills dated (5 Nos.).
Exhibit A-2. Copies of the email communications between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party
Exhibit A-3. Copies of the complaints were sent to the 1st opposite party by the 2nd opposite party.
Opposite party’s evidence
Exhibit-B-1. Undertaking dated 24/10/2019 issued by the manufacturer/M/s. Noble.
C.C. No. 36/2020
Order dated 28.04.2023
