MANOJ MOTILAL GARVALIYA Vs. ANAND VIJAY KUMAR RANJALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act ) is to the order, dated 28.1.2014, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short the State Commission ) in FA No. 12/597. By the impugned order, the State Commission confirmed the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and dismissed the Appeal.

(2.) The brief facts, as set out in the Complaint, are that the Complainant purchased new three bedroom flat in Pune and appointed a carpenter for making the following furniture with the following prices: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_128_LAWS(NCD)2_20161.htm</FRM>

(3.) The Complainant stated that the said amount included two years maintenance cost along with the material costs. He was informed that the carpenter would use 18 mm plywood of a renowned company and would complete the said work by 20.2.2.009. Relying on the Opposite Party Carpenter's assurance, the Complainant had fixed flat's Vastushant on 4.2.2009 but the Opposite Party did not complete the work till 10.4.2009 in spite of receipt of Rs. 2,20,000 and used substandard quality material for making the said furniture. The Complainant submitted that the carpenter used 11 mm plywood instead of promised 18 mm and due to substandard quality, even the repair work could not be done satisfactorily. The Opposite Party promised that he would change the entire furniture but did not do so. The Complainant submitted that if the wood work and furniture made by the Opposite Party carpenter is removed, it would cause a lot of damage to the walls of his flat. Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs. 2,20,000 together with compensation and costs. In the event of the refund not being possible, he sought for a direction to appoint a Court Commissioner and on his direction, make new furniture by using standard quality material to the satisfaction of the Court Commissioner and the Complainant.