Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.      The allegation made in the complaint is that the opposite parties supplied defective and inferior quality materials and installed furniture unscientifically. The further averment made by the complainant is that the 1st opposite party claimed that they have vast experience in the field of interior decoration, modular kitchen, wardrobes etc and are the authorized suppliers of reputed branch like India Wood manufactured by 2nd opposite party. The rubber wood was guaranteed for life against from the fungi, termite and borer along with 10 years warranty for finished products. The 1st opposite party also stated that the rubber wood used were supplied by the 2nd opposite party and the kitchen accessories and appliances were of KAFF. The complainant paid Rs.3,47,668/- to the 1st opposite party.

6.      The evidence of the complainant consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts A1 to A24. Commissioner was examined as CW1 and the report marked as C1.

7.      It is in evidence from C1 report that the fungal infection were seen in the show case. Further it is also pointed out that the showcase in the kitchen was not attacked by the fungal infection or termite attack.

8.      The Forum below proceeded on the basis that the 1st opposite party provided the furniture to the complainant. It is not in dispute that the furniture provided by the 1st opposite party was of good quality. Accepting the case of the complainant Forum below held that the 1st and 2nd opposite party are liable to pay damages.

          12.    On hearing the counsels for appellants and on going through the records we find that there is a strong case for the complainant/appellant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant entrusted the work of interior decoration, modular kitchen, wardrobes, crockery shelf etc with the 1st respondent and paid Rs.3,41,668/-. Though the defects were informed to the 1st respondent/1st opposite party was trying to absolve their liability and was trying to fasten the liability on the 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party. It is true that some raw materials were purchased from the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent was not in a position to prove that they were the authorized dealer of the 2nd respondent. This contention was strongly denied by the 2nd respondent /2nd opposite party. There is no case for the 1st respondent that the work was done satisfactorily as per the terms of agreement. It is also not proved that the 1st respondent used the raw-materials supplied by the 2nd respondent /2nd opposite party alone. On the contrary, it is in evidence by the quality control officer of the 2nd respondent that the materials used by the 1st respondent were not supplied by 2nd respondent. This fact was not contraverted by the 1st respondent. It is not on record that 2nd opposite party is having any liability towards the complainant. The statement in C1, commissioner's Report that the show case in the kitchen has no termite attack or fungus infestation and further the statement that the complainant was keeping the dresses in the show case in the kitchen remain uncontroverted we come to the finding that the ward-robe in the kitchen is in good condition.