Haryana

Ambala

CC/241/2020

Apex Financial Sercvices - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sri Plywoods - Opp.Party(s)

C.M. Attri

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	241 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	16.10.2020
Date of decision	:	09.06.2023

APEX FINANCIAL SERVICES Through its Proprietor Kumar Gaurav S/O Sh. Ashok Kumar R/O # 584, Sector 8, Urban Estate, Ambala City, Haryana.

…..Complainant

VERSUS

1. Sri Sri Plywoods, Through it's Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Plot No.128, Opposite City Media Office, Manav Chowk, Ambala City, Haryana. 134003. (Seller/Supplier).
2. Forever Plywood Private Limited, Through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, 12, Jiwan Complex 282 G Kidwai Nagar, Ludhiana Punjab. (Manufacturer).

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri C.M. Atri, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Jasdev Saini, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 already ex parte vide order dated 12.10.2021.      

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace defective teak ply with new one or to refund the amount of defective teak ply i.e. Rs. 82,576/-.
2. To pay Rs.7,100/- spent on material used in construction work.
3. To pay Rs.36544/- spent on material used in construction work.
4. To pay Rs.22050/- spent in polish work (i.e. labour work expenses).
5. To pay Rs.7360/-spent in construction work.
6. To pay Rs.12,863/- spent in construction work used in construction work. i.e. Adhesive.
7. To pay Rs.91425/- labour & construction work.
8. To pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost for forcing the complainant to undergo present litigation.
9. To pay Rs.20,000/- on account of pain, suffering agony, mental and physical harassment.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is working as a financer in the name & style Apex Financial Services, Ambala City & running his business to earn his livelihood. In order to uplift his status & to fulfill his own desires as well as wishes of his family members, the Proprietor of the complainant purchased a plot in khasra no.2//37/2/2 measuring about 74 sq. yards, Shakti Nagar, Ambala City & constructed his office in the said plot. After constructing building in said plot complainant started wood work in his office. In order to purchase construction material complainant visited office of OP No.1  as it is dealing in the sale & supply of plywood & teak material. On seeing the interest of complainant, OP No.1 assured complainant that all the material is of good quality & there will be no defect or any kind of complaint if complainant purchase the material. As per assurance & surety given by OP No.1 about the good quality & genuineness of material, the complainant purchased teak wood from OP No.1 worth Rs. 82576/- vide Bill/Invoice no. 2261 dated 24-05-2019 & 2270 dated 27-05-2019. At the time of purchasing the material from OP No.1, OP No.1 also assured the complainant that if there will any defect or any complaint in the material purchased, it will incur all the expenses or loses done to complainant. Before/after purchasing all the related material wood from OP No.1, work was started & carpenter along with his co-workers were engaged to complete wood work. Cost of all the material & labour work was borne by complainant, which was about Rs. 2,59,918/-. After completing wood work, labourers for doing polish work were engaged and while polish work was going on teak ply, purchased by complainant from OP No.1, it  was found swollen/Puffed up/Bloomed. When the complainant told OP No.1 about this problem, it told him that employees of company will visit the office of complainant but to no avail.  All the material used in wood work & labour work done by carpenter & labour of polish is now useless due to sub-standard material given by the OPs. All efforts to compromise the matter between complainant & OPs went in vain and as such, under compelling circumstances, the complainant served upon the OPs a legal notice dated 10-07-2020 but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts, estoppal, time barred and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that the plywood sold by OP No.1 was of good quality. The complainant never visited the Office/shop of OP No.1 and he be asked to put strict proof to prove the allegations qua damage of wood after polishing. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2021.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Kumar Gaurav son of Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o 584, Sector 8, Urban Estate , Ambala City and affidavit of Shri Nabav Singh @ Sunny son of Munim Singh, Village Sitholi, Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, R/o 257, Village Sitholi, Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, 2^nd address/at present R/o #583, First Floor, Sector 8, Ambala City as Annexure C-A and C-B respectively alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shrya Mittal, Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Plot No.128, Opposite City Media Office, Manav Chowk, Ambala City (Haryana) as Annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by selling the wood of inferior quality, which ultimately turned swollen/puffed up/bloomed when polish was being applied on it, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
8.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that since the complainant has failed to prove that the wood sold to him was of inferior quality, by placing on record any  report of the qualified expert in the field of wood, as such, he is not entitled to get any relief in the matter
9.           Since, the wood purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 is not in dispute as such the only moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant has been able to prove its case that the said wood was of inferior quality or not?. It may be stated here that though the complainant in its complaint has alleged that the wood sold by the OPs was of inferior quality because it turned swollen/puffed up/bloomed when polish was being applied on it, yet, it has not placed on record any documentary evidence in that regard. Mere placing on record one affidavit, Annexure C-B of Nabav Singh, who claimed himself that he is doing the work of polishing of wood since many years and that he found that when he applied polish on the teak ply, it swallowed/puffed up/bloomed, which amounts to manufacturing defect, cannot be considered as cogent and convincing evidence because a person who is doing polish work on wood cannot be said to be an expert to come to the conclusion that the wood on which he did the polish work is suffering from any manufacturing defect. On the other hand, it can only be established by a qualified person in the field of wood only and not a polisher. Except the affidavit (Annexure C-B), there is no other evidence having been produced on record by the complainant to prove that the wood purchased by it from OP No.1 was of inferior quality or was suffering from any manufacturing defect.  As far as reliance placed by the complainant on the CD is concerned, it may be stated here that at the time of arguments the said CD was played in the presence of learned counsel for the contesting parties, in open Court. On play, it was found that the main conversation carried out between the parties is qua non supply of the bill in respect of the wood in question, which is not so significant as far as the dispute in question is concerned, because OP No.1 has fairly admitted in its written version qua sale of the said wood to the complainant.  No doubt, somewhere, the conversation qua defective wood is also carried out between the parties, yet, there is nothing in the CD wherefrom it is proved that the wood in question was ultimately found and proved to be defective. The contents of the CD cannot be accepted as an alternative evidence, in the absence of any expert report, referred to above, to come to any definite conclusion. As such, no help can be drawn by the complainant from the said CD.  
10.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove its case, to the effect that the wood sold by OP No.1 suffered from any manufacturing defect or that the same was of inferior quality, as such, no relief can be granted to it in that regard. The present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.   

Announced:- 09.06.2023

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President