A consumer is entitled to a refund of the price paid for defective goods, as well as compensation for any loss or damage suffered due to the defective goods.

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — This complaint is made by the complainant alleging the supply of defective goods. The complainant alleged that he was carrying on the research” activity in his agricultural lands at Ambivli in Raigad District. He purchased a ready made portable house from the opposite party for a short stay at his farm mentioned above. The complainant had read advertisement displayed by opposite party, finding reliable and versatile, pre fabricated structure to suit the purpose, known as “ PORTA CABIN”. Relying on the assurance displayed in the aforesaid advertisement, the complainant purchased one PORTA CABIN from the opposite party at a cost of Rs. 80,000/- and other accessories for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The complainant alleged that after the first monsoon downpour in the month of June, 89, he was horrified to notice the leakage of water and also noticed other defects like use of inferior wood, ill designed structure etc. The complainant, therefore, alleged that the PORTA CABIN supplied to him by the opposite party did not confirm to the standard and specifications which were represented in the advertisement. The complainant, therefore, claimed refund of Rs. 93,700/- paid to the opposite party and Rs. 8,800/- for traveling and transport and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

2. The opposite party did not file the written version within 30 days time, as ordered. However, looking to the allegations from the complainant, the Commission appointed one Mr. J.R. Raval, a Chartered Engineer to examine the PORTA CABIN in question. The complainant, the Commissioner, Shri Rawal visited the PORTA CABIN on 20.9.91 and submitted his report dated 3.10.91. Shri Raval had visited the PORTA CABIN in question, — in the presence of both the parties and has given his detailed report. In the report, the Commissioner pointed out so many defects as regards the PORTA CABIN in question. In the opinion of the Commissioner, the construction of the PORTA CABIN was substandard, faulty and further stated that the said CABIN could not withstand the climatic condition of sun, wind and rain. The said report is placed on record.

3. We have heard the complainant with Mascaren has and opposite party by G. Pillay, Advocate. After considering the claim and counterclaim, the following points arise for our consideration.

(a) Whether PORTA CABIN supplied to complainant was defective.

(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of purchase price and compensation.

The report of the Commissioner dated 3.10.91 is not disputed by the parties. The complainant filed the receipts and other documents and also the advertisement of PORTA CABIN. The opposite party filed a belated document dated 3.12.91 when the case was fixed for arguments. The fact that the complainant purchased the PORTA CABIN in question from the opposite party is not in dispute. Similarly, the written advertisement of the opposite party regarding the PORTA CABIN placed at Ex. A, is also not in dispute. The complainant submitted that the PORTA CABIN did not confirm to the description and specifications stated in the advertisement at Ex. A. The description of the PORTA CABIN in the advertisement is reproduced below:—

“PORTA CABIN is a wooden structure, meant to be exposed to rain, sun and high wind velocity Light etc.” There is also description about doors, windows and other aspects. There are also the pictures of the PORTA CABIN in Exh. A. the complainant alleged that he was convinced about the durability of the PORTA CABIN on the basis of the aforesaid description of the PORTA CABIN appearing in the advertisement. The complainant further alleged that the description of the PORTA CABIN mentioned in the advertisement was found to be false as regards the PORTA CABIN in question. The complainant further alleged that after receiving the first rain water, doors and windows were not in proper shape and the wood used was of inferior quality. He further alleged that the nails used