STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.  Gurmukh Singh of M/s Namdhari Marble House, Batra Theatre Road, Marble Market, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh.

2.  Gurbaksh Singh @ Jolly of M/s Namdhari Marble House, Batra Theatre Road, Marble Market, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh.

3.  M/s Namdhari Marble House, Batra Theatre Road, Marble Market, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh through Sh. Gurmukh Singh Partner/Manager.

……Appellants

V e r s us

Alamjit Singh Maan,  S/o Sh. Surjit Singh,  now resident of H. NO. 4214, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,10,800/- to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. OPs are further directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for physical harassment & mental agony, along with Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation, failing which, they shall pay the awarded amount, along with penal interest @12% per annum, till the amount is actually paid, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.10,000/-“.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant(now respondent), induced by the Opposite Parties (now appellants), agreed to purchase good quality white marble from them, and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, in cash, out of the total estimate of Rs.7,60,800/-, prepared by Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2. Thereafter, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.4,40,800/-, through cheques on 11.09.2010.  The Opposite Parties, supplied the marble vide bill No. 22514 dated 11.9.2010.  According to the complainant, the Opposite Parties, supplied him the cheap quality marble,         @ Rs.100/- per square feet, though charged from him, the price of marble @Rs.300/- per square feet. When the complainant approached the Opposite Parties,  to change the marble, being of poor quality or refund the remaining amount, they failed to do so. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               The Opposite Parties, in their reply, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, before the District Forum, as, complicated questions of fact and law, were involved in the same, which could only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The factum of purchase of marble and payment thereof, by the complainant, was admitted by the Opposite Parties. It was denied that the marble supplied to the complainant, was of inferior quality. On the other hand, it was stated that  the marble,  which was supplied to the complainant, was of good quality, cost of which was settled @ Rs.300/- per square feet. It was further stated that, however, the bill @ Rs.100/- per sq., feet, was prepared,  on the asking of the complainant. It was further stated that since, the marble in question, had been cut into pieces, by the complainant, therefore, the same could not be replaced, being unusable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               The Counsel for the appellants submitted, that since the complicated questions of fact and law, were involved in the complaint, it could only be adjudicated upon, after examining and cross examining the witnesses and, thus, the District Forum, had no jurisdiction to decide the same, as the proceedings before it, were summary in nature. It was further submitted that the marble, which was supplied by  the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, was of good quality @Rs.300/- per square feet, but the bill was prepared @Rs.100/- per square feet, on the asking of the complainant, as he wanted to save income tax. He further submitted that, in case, the marble was of inferior quality, then the District Forum, could send the representative sample of the same to the Laboratory, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and get the report therefrom, but no such exercise was undertaken by the said Forum. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.               After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum that the complainant, approached the Opposite Parties, for the purchase of marble of superior quality. An estimate of the marble, which the complainant sought to purchase, is Annexure C-1. According to this estimate, the price of the marble, which was to be supplied to the complainant, was Rs.7,10,800/- @Rs.300/- per square feet. There is also, no dispute, about the factum that a sum of Rs.7,60,800/-, was paid by the complainant,  to the Opposite Parties. On the other hand,  the marble,  which was supplied to the complainant,  vide bill Annexure C-2, was the one @Rs.100/- per square feet, and the total price thereof came to be Rs.2,70,000/-. Both these documents, clearly go to prove, that the marble, which was sought to be supplied to the complainant, as per the estimate Annexure C-1, was not supplied but marble of some inferior quality @Rs.100/- per square feet, was supplied, though the price charged from the complainant,  was to the tune of Rs.7,60,800/-, for the marble of superior quality @Rs.300/- per square feet. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect, that though the price of Rs.7,60,800/-, for supply of marble @Rs.300/- per square feet, was charged, from the complainant and the same was supplied to him, but, on his asking bill Annexure C-2, was issued at a lesser rate i.e. @Rs.100/- per square feet, so as to enable him to save income tax. Such an assertion, made by the Counsel for the appellants, does not find support from any evidence. Under these circumstances, such a plea, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, cannot be taken into consideration. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties indulged into unfair trade practice, by supplying the marble of inferior quality @Rs.100/- per square feet, though price charged from the complainant was for the marble @Rs.300/- per square feet. The findings of the District Forum, being correct, are affirmed.

10.             Coming to the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that the District Forum, should have sent the representative sample of the marble, to the Laboratory, for ascertaining, as to whether, it was of ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­inferior quality, but no such exercise was undertaken by it, it may be stated here, that, in case, the Opposite Parties, wanted to send the representative sample of the marble, they could move such an application to the District Forum, but they did not do so. At this stage, such a submission, made by the Counsel for the appellants, cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, it may be stated here, that it was a case of unfair trade practice, as was duly proved from Annexure C-1, estimate issued by the Opposite Parties and Annexure C-2, the bill issued by them, in favour of the complainant, regarding supply of the marble. Such a submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.            Coming to the other submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that since this case, involved complicated questions of fact and law, the District Forum, before which the proceedings were summary, in nature, could not decide the same and it could only be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it may be stated here, that there was neither any complex nor complicated question of fact or law, involved in the instant case. The only  question, which was involved for determination, in the complaint was, as to whether, the marble @Rs.300/- per square feet, as per estimate Annexure C-1, the price whereof was charged by the Opposite Parties, was supplied or the marble @Rs.100/- per square feet, as is depicted in bill Annexure C-2, issued by the Opposite Parties, was supplied. From both these documents, Annexure C-1 and C-2, everything was clear. Since no complicated questions of fact or law, were involved nor detailed evidence, was required to be recorded, in this case, the District Forum, had jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Reliance placed by the Counsel for the appellants on Indian Phytochem Vs. S.K.Banerjee and Others, 2004 (2) CPC 206, a case decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal, Dehradun and Mansoor Ali Khan Vs. Ramesh Chandra Das, 2010 (1) CPC 315,  a case decided by Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, is misconceived.  The facts, of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid cases, the Commission, came to the conclusion, that the complicated questions of fact and law, were involved. It was, under these circumstances, that it held that the same could not be decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants, from the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, therefore being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.

13.            The order passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 10, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg