KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.80/2018

JUDGEMENT DATED : 19.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.253/2017on the file of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. Nithya S.)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.253/2017 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

             2.  The complainant had purchased roofing tiles on 02.02.2016 for a total amount of Rs.71,905/-(Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Five only).  The tiles purchased by the complainant were used in the roof of the 2^nd floor of the house of the complainant.  But during the rainy season, fungus was found spread over the roofing tiles and the tiles were found to be damaged.  In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant to the opposite party, nothing was done by the opposite party.  There was also leakage due to the damage caused to the tiles.  At the time of purchasing the tiles, it was assured by the opposite party that the tiles were of superior quality.  However, it is now found that the tiles were of inferior quality. The opposite party was not prepared to redress the grievance of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          3.       Notice was served on the opposite party.  However, the opposite party neither appeared before the District Commission nor filed any version.  In the said circumstances, the opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission. 

4.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3 series were marked for the complainant.  The District Commission, after evaluating the evidence, directed the opposite party to refund Rs.71,905/-(Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Five only), which is the price of the tiles, to the complainant.  The District Commission further directed the opposite party to pay Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation and Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as costs.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

          5.       Heard.  Perused the records.

          6.       The complainant contended that she had purchased the tiles as per Exhibit A1 bill for an amount of Rs.71,905/-(Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Five only).  The tiles purchased by the complainant were used in the roof of the 2^nd floor of the house of the complainant.  However, the tiles were found to have been damaged due to fungi. Exhibit A3 series photographs would show that the tiles were damaged as contended by the complainant.

          7.       The District Commission did not give any reason for granting the reliefs.  The District Commission simply stated about the documents marked.  Thereafter, the District Commission allowed the complaint.  The District Commission ought to have found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party before awarding compensation.  We have gone through the contentions in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exhibits A1 to A3 series. We are satisfied that there is nothing on record inconsistent with or contrary to the evidence of the complainant that the tiles purchased by the complainant got damaged due to fungi, as the said tiles were not superior quality tiles as promised by the opposite party. Therefore, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.  Exhibit A1 is the cash bill whereby the complainant purchased the tiles.   For the said reason, we are of the view that the direction of the District Commission to the opposite party to refund Rs.71,905/-(Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Five only) to the complainant, which is the price for which the complainant purchased the tiles as evident from Exhibit A1, cannot be said to be incorrect, calling for interference by this Commission.  However, the District Commission ordered compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) and costs of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only). We are of the view that the compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission appear to be excessive and disproportionate, warranting interference by this Commission. 

8.       Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation ordered by the District Commission can be modified and reduced to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and costs ordered by the District Commission can be modified and reduced to Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only), to meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part;

and

(a) the order of the District Commission directing the opposite party to refund Rs.71,905/-(Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Five only) to the complainant stands confirmed.

(b) the compensation and costs awarded by the District Commission stand modified and reduced to Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) respectively.

(c) in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this appeal.

SL