w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Chelakara Ramaswamy v/s Eco Board Industries Limited, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director Mr.V.S. Raju & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- ECO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51505HR2015FTC057017

Company & Directors' Information:- V.S. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120HR2009PTC039570

Company & Directors' Information:- D. N. ECO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U37200MH2019PTC335147

    F.A.No.1392 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.57 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM II VISAKHAPATNAM

    Decided On, 16 February 2010

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, SRI SYED ABDULLAH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & SRI R. LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO
    By, MEMBER

    Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V. Gourisankara Rao, Sri A.V.C.N.Nageswara Rao. Counsel for the Respondents no.1 to 3: Sri G.L. Prasad. Counsel for the Respondent No.4: ----



Judgment Text

Oral Order ( As per R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)


The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His grievance as reflected in the complaint is that for interior decoration of kitchen of his flat, he had, on reference by his friend Commander Satish Prasad, approached the third opposite party who after inspecting the kitchen entrusted the work to the fourth opposite party and promised the complainant that the fourth opposite party would carry out the interior decoration of the kitchen. The fourth opposite party prepared estimate on 22nd September 2009. The works were estimated, after giving the discount of 15%, at Rs.1,47,569/-. The fourth opposite party promised to complete the work by 10th October 2005 for the value of Rs.1,35,000/- and agreed to the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in case there would be delay in execution of the work and the amount was payable in three stages, Rs.50,000/- prior to the date of commencement of work at the time of commencement of work and the balance after completion of the work.


The first opposite party promised the complainant that the fourth opposite party was authorized to carry interior work with the material of the Eco board, on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 3. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the fourth opposite party. The third opposite party assured the complainant that he would coordinate with the fourth opposite party to ensure proper Eco Board accepted quality job within the stipulated time. The fourth opposite party has not commenced the work as agreed and there was no response to the request in this regard made by the complainant to opposite parties no.3 and 4. The complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- that was demanded by the fourth opposite party. On contrary to what was agreed that the fourth opposite party would bring the material in knocked down condition to the flat of the complainant and he would reassemble it there, simply moved the material to the complainant?s house. The fourth opposite party could not complete the job because the boards were of uneven side and not preassembled as also for the use of sub-standard Eco Board produce manual and cheap ?V? metal clamps. The material brought by the fourth opposite party was not as per the standard and as such he abandoned the job.


The complainant complained to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and requested them either to get the work completed by the fourth opposite party or return the amount of Rs.20,000/- paid to the fourth opposite party. The first opposite party assured the complainant that he would get the work done by a responsible person. The second opposite party on 10th November, 2005 instructed the fourth opposite party to complete the work within ten days using Eco Board standard fittings as per Eco board standards and without using ?V? metal clamps. On 29.12.2005 the fourth opposite party promising for the replacement taken away the material one Skelton unit and assured the complainant that he would complete the work till 4th January 2006. The opposite parties failed to complete the interior work of the kitchen of the complainant?s flat. The opposite parties no.1 to 4 are jointly and vicariously liable to pay damages to the complainant.


The opposite parties no.1 to 3 resisted the claim. It was stated that the fourth opposite party was no way related to them. The quotation for the kitchen cupboards with exterior eco board and the agreement for interior decoration of the kitchen of the complainant are the transactions between the complainant and the opposite party no.4. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are not responsible for any of such transaction between the complainant and the fourth opposite party. The complainant came to the office of the third opposite party and took away the seal forcibly and affixed on the paper the seal consequently to which the opposite party no.3 lodged complaint with the police concerned. Entire allegations in the complaint are leveled against the opposite party no.4.


The opposite party no.4 remained exparte.


The complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his case. Exs.A1 to A11 have been marked on his side.


The third opposite party has filed his affidavit but no documents were filed on behalf of the opposite parties.


The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite party no.4 and dismissed it against the opposite parties no.1 to 3 opining that the fourth opposite party was responsible to undertake the interior work in the kitchen of the complainant?s flat and that the contract was entered into between the complainant and the opposite party no.4.


Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant filed the appeal contending that the opposite party no.3 has introduced the opposite party no.4 to the appellant as their contractor. The manual issued by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 specifies that specialized trading and training is required for using eco board for various applications of kitchen cabinets. The District Forum has not considered Ex.A6 which was issued by the opposite party no.3.


The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from the vice of mis-appreciation of facts or law?


The complainant is the owner of Flat no.2 at Keerthana Enclave, Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of Eco Board plain and pre-laminated particles which is a substitute for panel products of wide range of applications in home and offices. The second opposite party is the general manager and the third opposite party is the territorial manager of the opposite party no.1. There is dispute between the parties as to the relationship between the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and opposite party no.4 which was not decided by the District Forum which led the complainant to file the instant appeal as the liability to pay the amount of Rs.70,000/- was fastened on the fourth opposite party absolving the opposite parties no.1 to 3 from any such liability.


It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the third opposite party has introduced the fourth opposite party as their contractor to the complainant and in the circumstances emerging consequent to the failure of the fourth opposite party in execution of the interior decoration of the kitchen of the complainant?s flat, the complainant approached the third opposite party and complained in regard to the attitude of the opposite party no.4 who left the interior decoration work in an unfinished and incomplete stage. It is true, the complainant has stated that he had approached the third opposite party on his being referred by Commander Satish Prasad. The complainant, however, has not filed the affidavit of Commander Satish Prasad. The opposite party no.3 has denied execution of Ex.A6 and stated that the complainant had forcibly taken the seal from his office and fabricated Ex.A6.


The opposite party no.3 has not filed any record to show that he had lodged complaint with the police in regard to the contention that Ex.A6 was fabricated. The complainant has specifically stated that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have engaged the opposite party no.4 to carry out the interior decoration of his kitchen. The complainant has also stated the same fact in the legal notice that he has got issued to the opposite parties. The District Forum has not considered this aspect nor the document, Ex.A6 and it has not recorded any finding though it was not mandatory to frame a specific issue on the aspect. However, the framing of issues or framing of points would not only give clarity to t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he appreciation of facts it would also eliminates any element of arbitrariness in the order. As aforesaid no discussion was made nor the documents particularly ExA6 was considered by the District Forum before absolving the opposite parties no.1 to 3 of the liability that was fastened on the opposite party no.4. For the reasons and circumstances mentioned above, we deem it a fit case to remand to the District Forum for denova enquiry and better appreciation of evidence. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District forum. The complaint is remitted to the District Forum to decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order keeping in view of the aforesaid observations. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 5.03.2010 without insisting on fresh notice. No costs.
O R