KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.933/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/9/08 PRESENT :- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/s.Orma Marble Centre, Talore, Bye Pass, Thrissur : APPELLANT represented by its Proprietor. (By Adv.Raju Augustine) Vs Sri.Anilkumar, Kalambukattu, Mannanam P.O., Kottayam, : RESPONDENT its agent S.Sukumaran JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No.17/04 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 3/10/03 the date of purchase of marble slabs till payment and also cost of Rs.2,500/- 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had approached the 1st opposite party for purchasing marble for the flooring of his house under construction. As the items at the showroom were not to the satisfaction of the complainant the fist opposite party advised him to visit their showroom at Thrissur where there are more varieties. Accordingly he went to the 2nd opposite party another showroom of the same group and as suggested by the salesman Sherin purchased Arna White marble at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. ft. and a sum of Rs.2000/- paid as advance. He purchased 2826. 85 sq.ft of above variety of marble for which the price worked out to Rs.1,67,000/-. The price was paid by cheque.No.0576612 of S.B.I. Kaippuzha for which a receipt was issued. The cheque was encashed by the 2nd opposite party and the marble was unloaded on 3/10/03 and Rs.4,000/- was paid for unloading. Only a chit showing the full quantity and actual rate was handedover. Only two bills, one for Rs.34563.06 and another for Rs.33470.86 were issued under the pretext that issuance of proper bills will result in heavy sales tax etc.. When the marble was laid on 22/11/03 it was found that most of the slabs had cracks at the center. Although the matter was intimated the opposite party ignored the complaints. The lawyer notice was sent on 10/12/03. Only the 2nd opposite party has sent a reply alleging that the complainant had purchased low quality marble at the rate of Rs.344/- per square metre. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs.1,71,000/- with interest and Rs.5000/- towards labour charges in connection with the laying and also compensation and costs. 3. The opposite parties have filed a joint version denying the allegation that Arna White marble was purchased by the complainant. It is pointed out that Arna White marble is very costly. It was only ordinary marble that was purchased at the rate of Rs. 344/- per square metre. Bills were issued by the bill Nos.239, 240 and 241 and the total amount paid was Rs.1,02, 596/-. It is pointed out that the marble was selected by the complainant and that there was no cracks and that the cracks might have developed subsequently due to mishandling. They denied any liability on their part. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant, his agent and a witness and DW1; Exts.A1 to A6; B1 to B3 and C1. 5. In order to find that the marble slabs supplied there is inferior quality and that it contained cracks the Forum has relied on Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner. We find that the Commissioner is a Reader in the Department of Marine Geology and Geo Physics at the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The Commissioner inspected the marble slabs in the presence of the representatives of the complainant and the opposite party. The Commissioner has also noted the code numbers of the marble slabs and sliced pieces kept in the premises. It is noted that the material is not of any standard quality and that same is not Arna white although it has some resemblance. It is lower quality look alike of Arna white. The Arna white would be whiter in colour and harder. He has noted that the quantity would be slightly above 3000 sq.fit. of which around 1000 sq.fit were cut to certain extent. He has also noted that in most of the slabs there is a hair line fracture all along their length, almost along the middle of the slabs. The above defect is the intrinsic property of the blocks from which these slabs were derived and not produced while quarrying or transport. These slabs will break into two pieces on slight exertion of pressure or vibration. It is also mentioned that on account of above defects the slabs cannot be laid as single pieces. It is pointed out that the very purpose of going for larger slabs is to minimize the joints on the laid surface. It is also pointed out that the larger slabs will cost around half the cost of the tiles of the same marble. It is also mentioned that in the absence of cracks/fractures the same would have cost around Rs.50 per sq.ft. On account of the fractures , the value would be half of it. We find that as pointed out by the counsel for the complainant/the opposite party have not filed any objection to the C.R 6. As pointed out DW1 the 1st opposite party when cross examined has denied any knowledge about the manner in which the petitioner purchased the marble slabs from the 2nd opposite party. Hence it was held that the fact that the complainant purchased 2826.85 sq.ft. of marble at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq.ft. stood unchallenged. 7. Ext.A1 the computer print out mentions the price as Rs.1,67,960/-. It is noted in ink that Rs.2000/- paid and the balance is Rs.1,65,000/- It is stressed that Ext.A1 contains the code numbers which has been noted by the Commissioner. It appears that the above constitute a very strong point in support of the case setup by the complainant. The complainant has also produced Ext.A2 and A3 bills for a sum of Rs.34,563.06 and Rs.33,470.86 which is the conformity with the contention of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the receipt in white paper mentioning that a sum of Rs.1,65,000 was received. It is dated 30/10/03. The averments of the Ext.A5 the lawyer notice also is as per the case set up by the complainant. We find that the Forum has considered the evidence in proper perspective. The Forum has declined the amount claimed for loading Rs.4,000/- and Rs.5000/- as labour charges for cutting the marble as the above is not supported by any objective evidence. We find that there is no patent illegally in the appreciation of the evidence and hence no scope for interference. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
