DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 27th day of April, 2023
C.C.456/2016
Complainant
T.V.Prakash,
S/o. Kunhikannan Nambiar,
“Amrutha”,
Vaidhyarangadi P.O, Ramanattukara,
Kozhikode – 673 633.
(by Adv. Sri.P.C. Suresh Kumar & Adv. Manjula.K)
Opposite Party
- The Proprietor, Abdul Salam,
Highway Plywoods and Glasses,
Ramanattukara,
Tirur – 673 633.
(by Adv.Sri.Hareendranath.C)
- M/s. C.J. Ply Glass,
Rice Bazar Road,
New Adam Bazar,
Opp. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank,
Thrissur – 680 001.
(corrected as per Order dated 04/04/23 in IA 109/23)
(by Adv. Sri.Harish.A.N & Adv.Sri.P.T.Dileep)
Suppl.2.
Sreejith,
Proprietor,
Verona Panels,
12/728-C/4, Unity Road,
Thrissur – 680 005.
(OP2 impleaded as per IA No.346/17)
- Amby Ply Panels & Door Factory,
678/3, Kurumbanur
Mettupalayam, Tamil Nadu – 641 305.
(by Adv. Sri.Harish Babu.P.N)
- The Veera Silver Frames,
Branch – 680, Kurumbanur,
Mettupalayam,
TamilNadu – 641 305.
(OP 3 & 4 impleaded as per IA No.43/19)
(by Adv. Sri.Harish Babu.P.N)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
For the purpose of renovating his house, on 13-11-2015 the complainant purchased plywood of the company Verona Panels Pvt Ltd from the shop of the first opposite party. He visited the shop along with carpenter Sri. Melemangalath Radhakrishnan. The sales man showed them the plywood of various companies displayed in the shop and represented that the plywood of the above company is of superior quality and would prevent fungal wear and tear and had lifelong durability. On the representation and recommendation of the sales man, the complainant purchased plywood worth Rs.41,496/- including fevicol. The salesman and manager of the first opposite party had assured that the said plywood was marine plywood which would not deteriorate even if the same was kept immersed in water and had lifelong warranty. It was also promised that the product would be replaced in the event of any deterioration/ wear and tear.
3. The plywood so purchased was utilised by the complainant for making kitchen cabinets and shelves including the shelves in the bathrooms. The cost of ancillaries, painting and labour charges for the above work amounted to Rs.1,41,347/- .But within a span of six months, the plywood was visibly worn out and damaged due to fungal attack and started decaying and became brittle emanating foul smell within the house. The carpenter after inspection stated that the problem was the result of mediocre quality of the plywood. On reporting the complaint, the sales man from the 1st opposite party visited the spot and promised to contact the manufacturer directly and would resolve the issue.
4. The deterioration of the plywood was due to the low quality of the product sold by the first opposite party. The complainant was constrained to remove all the articles from the shelves. He was put to gross suffering and difficulties. On 12-08-2016 he issued a lawyer notice to the first opposite party claiming compensation of Rs.6,82,843/-. On receipt of notice, the first opposite party sent a reply raising untenable contentions. The act of first opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
5. The supplemental second opposite party was impleaded as per the contentions in the written version of the first opposite party. Supplemental third and fourth opposite parties were impleaded as per the contentions in the written version of the supplemental second opposite party. All the opposite parties filed written version denying all the allegations and claims made in the complaint.
6. The first opposite party has admitted that the plywood in question was purchased by the complainant from his shop. But his contention is that the purchase was made by the complainant as per his choice and not as per any representation, promise or persuasion on the part of the first opposite party or his staff. He had never promised to replace the plywood in case of any deterioration. He had not assured lifelong warranty as alleged. It is not true that his staff inspected the work and assured to solve the problem. Upon his enquiry, it was revealed that there is no deterioration to the plywood. The product was of good quality. If there is any manufacturing defect, the manufacturer namely Verona company is a necessary party to the proceedings. There was no unfair trade practice on his part. No monetary loss or mental agony was occasioned to the complainant due to the act of the first opposite party. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. According to the supplemental second opposite party, they have no acquaintance with the complainant and there was no business transaction between them. The manufacturers of Verona plywood during the relevant period were supplemental opposite parties 3 and 4. Plywood is normally not used in wet areas. It is mostly used in dry areas. If at all there was any defect, the manufacturers are to be impleaded. There was no unfair trade practice on their part. No loss or mental agony was caused to the complainant due to their act and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. The contention of supplemental 3rd and 4th opposite parties in their written version is that they are not in any way related to the subject matter of the complaint and hence not liable or responsible for any of the reliefs made by the complainant. They had no transaction with the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they are total strangers. They manufacture premium quality plywood under the brand names ‘Ambi Ply, Synergy Ply and Reba ply’ only. They never supplied any plywood to opposite parties 1 and 2. The brand name Verona Panels Pvt Ltd is not in any way related to them. They are unnecessary parties to the proceedings.
9. All the averments made in the complaint are to be proved and established by the complainant through independent legally admissible documents. The complainant has not taken any steps to prove the alleged manufacturing defect. Even if any manufacturing defect is there, they are not liable or responsible for the same as they did not supply any plywood to opposite parties 1 and 2. They have been impleaded in the complaint without any justification and there is no truth or bonafides in filing the complaint as against them. With the above contentions, the supplemental opposite parties 3 and 4 also pray for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
10. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
11. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined on the side of the first opposite party. No evidence was let in by the other opposite parties. Ext C1 was also marked.
12. We heard both sides. Brief argument note was filed by the complainant.
13.Point No. 1: The complainant has approached this Commission claiming compensation of Rs.6,82,843/- from the opposite parties alleging that the plywood sold to him was of inferior quality and consequently the work done by him using the said plywood had worn out and damaged by fungal attack and started decaying emanating foul smell, within a short span of 6 months, resulting in grave mental agony and inconvenience to him, besides monetary loss.
14. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the cash /credit tax invoice dated 13-11-2015 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party for having purchased Verona plywood and fevicol, Ext A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 12-08-2016 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party, Ext A3 is the postal receipt, Ext A3 (a) is the postal acknowledgement card, Ext A4 is the reply notice dated 23-08-2016 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant, Ext A5 series are the photographs produced by the complainant and Ext A6 is the CD.
15. PW 2 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD buildings, who inspected the damaged plywood work in the house of the complainant and prepared Ext C1 report. PW 2 has deposed that there was fungal attack to the plywood and all the shelves were damaged.
16. The first opposite party has admitted the purchase of the plywood by the complainant from his shop. But his contention is that the purchase was made by the complainant as per his choice and there was no assurance or guarantee from his side. It is also his case that the plywood sold was of good quality and if at all there was any manufacturing defect, the manufacturer alone his liable. The first opposite party got himself examined as RW1. RW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version.
17. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the plywood sold by the 1st opposite party was of inferior quality and that was the reason why the entire work done using the same was damaged within a short span of time. It was argued that the case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Exts A1 to A6 and C1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first opposite party has argued that the plywood sold was of good quality and if at all any manufacturing defect is there, the manufacturer of Verona plywood alone is answerable. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4 pointed out that they have no connection with Verona plywood and they do not manufacture plywood under the brand name ‘Verona Plywood’. It was submitted that their brand names are ‘Ambi ply, Synergy Ply and Reba Ply’ and they have never supplied any plywood to the first and second opposite parties and in these circumstances, no liability can be fastened on them.
18. Admittedly, the complainant purchased Verona Plywood from the first opposite party on 13-11-2015 as per Ext A1. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Ext C1 show that the said plywood was used by the complainant for making kitchen cabinets and shelves including the shelves in the bathrooms in his house. It is in evidence that the whole work became damaged and rendered worthless due to fungal attack in the plywood. This is visible from Ext A5 series photographs produced by the complainant. This is further evidenced and fortified by Ext C1 report. Ext C1 was prepared by none other than the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD buildings Sub Division, Kozhikode, after inspecting the house of the complainant. In Ext C1 it is reported that all the kitchen cabinets and shelves made using the plywood are damaged due to fungal attack. Thus Ext C1 also depicts the sad plight of the complainant, who after spending money, made the work in his house using the plywood sold by the first opposite party. None of the opposite parties have filed any objection to Ext C1. Equally, they have no case that the work was done not using the plywood sold by the first opposite party.
19. It is true that the complainant has not taken any steps to examine the plywood in an approved laboratory. The necessity of such an examination is also made mention in Ext C1 report. But the facts remains that the entire plywood work is damaged due to fungal attack. This is evident from Exts A5 series and C1. There can be no doubt that the plywood sold to the complainant by the first opposite party is of inferior quality, otherwise, it would not have damaged within a short span of time.
20. The case tried to be set up by the first opposite party in his written version is that it is the manufacturer who is liable and responsible for any such defect in the product. But it may be noted that the first opposite party has no definite idea as to who is the manufacturer of the plywood sold by him. In the written version, the first opposite party has not revealed the address of the manufacturer. But pursuant to the applications filed by the complainant to furnish the address of the manufacturer, he furnished different addresses. Finally supplemental second opposite party was impleaded. Pursuant to the contentions taken by the second opposite party, supplemental 3rd and 4th opposite parties were impleaded as the manufacturers. In this context, it is important to note that the first opposite party when examined as RW1, has also no consistent case before this Commission as to who is the manufacturer of the product. In the cross examination, RW1 has stated that he does not know the second opposite party and has no acquaintance with them. RW1 has admitted that he had never purchased plywood from the third and fourth opposite parties or sold the same to the complainant. Then he stated that the second opposite party is the manufacturer of the product and he purchased the same from Thrissur. Finally, he added that he does not know the manufacturers of the plywood exhibited for sale in his shop. Thus RW1 has no consistent stand and it appears that he is not sure as to the manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant. He is categoric that he does not know the second opposite party and that he has not purchased plywood from the third and fourth opposite parties. The opposite parties 2 to 4 cannot be held liable as the manufacturers of the product, since there is absolutely no evidence that the plywood in question was manufactured by them. It is for the first opposite party to say who is the manufacturer of the product sold by him. But he is unable to say for certain as to who is the manufacturer. As far as the complainant is concerned, he purchased the plywood from the first opposite party. It is proved that the kitchen cabinet and shelves made with the said plywood had been damaged by fungal attack within a period of few months. It is the first opposite party, who sold the inferior quality plywood, the manufacturer of which, is not known to him. It is admitted by RW1 while in the box that he is unaware of the manufacturers of the plywood kept for sale in his shop. That being the position, the first opposite party alone is the liable and responsible for the monetary loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant. The act of the first opposite party in selling low quality product, the manufacturer of which is not known to him, and his neglect to redress the grievance of the complainant amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Ext A1 shows that the complainant had to spend a total amount of Rs. 41,496/- for the purchase of the plywood and fevicol for the work. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the said amount from the first opposite party. The complainant has claimed that he had to spend a total amount of Rs.1,41,347/- for purchase of ancillary items, expenses for painting and wages to the workers etc. But no documents are forthcoming in support of the claim. The complainant could not substantiate his case regarding the expenses by adducing satisfactory evidence. However, we are of the view that on a rough estimate, such expenses would be approximately Rs. 40,000/-. The complainant is entitled to recover the said amount from the first opposite party. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to gross mental agony, hardship and inconvenience due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.35,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. He is also entitled to get Rs.7,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
21. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.456/2016 is allowed in part.
b) The first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 41,496/- (Rupees Forty one Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Six only) to the complainant, being the price of the product as per Ext A1.
c) The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant towards labour charges, cost of accessories etc.
d) The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
e) The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
f) The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.41,496/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
g) The opposite parties 2 to 4 are exonerated.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27thday of April, 2023.
Date of Filing: 19/10/2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 - Cash /credit tax invoice dated 13-11-2015.
Ext.A2 - Copy of the lawyer notice dated 12-08-2016.
Ext.A3 - Postal receipt.
Ext A3 (a) - Postal acknowledgement card.
Ext A4 - Reply notice dated 23-08-2016.
Ext A5 series – photographs produced by the complainant.
Ext A6 - CD.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Exhibits for the Commission
Ext C1 - Report.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - T.V.Prakash
PW2 - Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD buildings.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Proprietor, Abdul Salam
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
