IMPORTANT POINT
Because of the poor quality of wood supplied and the non-completion of the
printing work by the OP, the complainant has suffered. The compensation in the
sum of Rs. 5000/- appears to be a
lower side. A further amount of Rs. 1500/- would be fair and adequate in the facts of the case.

K. Sampath, President — The 1st complainant in C.O.P. No. 1/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thoothukudi, is the appellant herein. The 2ndi complainant was CNR Consumer Rights Protection Cell, Tuticorin. The case of the 1st complainant was as follows:-

The 1st complainant/Appellant engaged the services of the opposite party for supplying wood and carrying out some painting work in her house. The opposite party agreed to supply Malaysian Kongu wood for the doors, window frames

and ventilators for a total sum of Rs. 16,300/-. He also agreed to execute the painting work for Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant used the materials supplied by the opposite party and found that they were of poor quality and they began to bend and decay. She incurred an expense of Rs. 11,000/- for carpentry work. On verification it was found that the wood supplied was of inferior quality. Even with regard to the painting work, the opposite party did not finish even l/5th of the work. She sent for the opposite party who admitted to having supplied inferior quality materials and that he had not completed the painting work as agreed.

Because of the said deficiency in service, she had suffered. She made a representation to the 2nd complainant and the

2nd complainant sent a notice to the

opposite party. There was no response. Another notice was sent on 25/10/99. But there was no reply. Hence the complaint.

2. The opposite party resisted the complaint.

3. Before the District Forum, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on the side of the complainants.

4. On the basis of the materials placed before it, the District Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 200/- by its order dated 27/4/2000. Not satisfied with the award, the present appeal has been filed by the 1st complainant.

5. The prayer in the complaint was as follows:-

(1) To replace or refund the cost of wood Rs. 16,300/-;

(2) To direct the opposite party to pay the carpentry charges Rs. l 1,000/-;

(3) To repay the amount of painting charges Rs. 7,215/-;

(4) To pay Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony; and

(5) To pay Rs. 500/- towards cost of the complaint.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Forum was in error in rejecting her prayer for a direction to rectify the defects by either replacing the defective material or by refunding the amount paid by her towards the cost of materials and refund the amount paid to the opposite party for the painting work. Having found that the complainant sustained loss on account of defective materials supplied by the opposite party as well as on the account of the failure to complete the painting work, the District Forum was in error in rejecting the complainant’s prayer for a direction to have the defects rectified. Since the District Forum was in error in holding that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for by the complainant for ordering refund of the moneys. According to the learned counsel, once the District Forum has rendered a finding that the opposite party had been negligent/deficient in service, there was no reason for it to reject the relief sought for by the complainant for compensation for the actual loss suffered. Even the cost awarded in a sum of Rs.200/-, according to the learned counsel, was far too inadequate.

7. The question is whether the order of the District Forum is to be varied. The District Forum found that in Ex.A-4 filed on the side of the opposite party, there is a definite admission that he supplied African Kongu wood and not Malaysian Kongu wood; that the mistake was on the part of the carpenter who had used the wood supplied without allowing it to dry and that was the reason why there was defect in the work. At the

time the wood was purchased, the complainant’s carpenter was very much present. He had satisfied himself about the qualit