N.VALARMATHI Vs. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties for deficiency of service in the supply of goods seeking for the relief of replacing the termite ridden plywood fixed in the complainants house along with labour and painting cost by the opposite parties for Rs.1,25,000/- by way of damages and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of sub standard plywood contrary to the guarantee and assurance with damage for their unfair trade practice and for costs.

(3.) The brief details of the complaint are as follows :- Complainant purchased plywood of 1st opposite party from 2nd opposite party for the newly constructed house on the basis of the advertisement made for the specific and categorical assurance and guarantee of the opposite parties that there would not be termites invasion and water seepage or any other malady forever. He has purchased plywood till July 1998 for her wooden articles to the expenditure of Rs.4,10,000/- towards labour costs, polishing and painting etc., From the month of April 1999, the plywood used have become waste due to termite bites and invasion and shrinkage contrary to the opposite parties guarantee and quality for long life. It became as unbearable misery, mental agony and after contacting the 2nd opposite party through complainants husband, the 1st opposite party sent his Marketing Executive Vijayakumar for inspection and arranged to spray and coat with anti termite chemicals treatment to mitigate, the complainant sufferings and prevent further deterioration of the plywoods fitted articles because of chemicals treatment the complainants family and her tender child have been made to suffer of horrible condition of living due to foul smell, bad odour emanating from the chemical treatment done by the opposite parties. The complainant have facing nauseating condition of living due to smell, odour and continuous falling of wooden powder from the plywood till date. The opposite parties knowingly supplied with substandard and inferior qualify of plywood instead of superior plywood as promised and thereby they committed unfair trade practice. A legal notice dated 2.5.2000 was issued and the 1st opposite party gave reply with untenable allegations. Hence the complaint was filed.