| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2015 Date of Institution: 02-01-2015 Date of Decision: 20-8-2015 Mr.Gurbax Singh son of Sh.Mulla Singh, resident of 68-C, Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Amritsar. Complainant Versus Arjun Marble House, Near Ashok Vatika School, New Amritsar, G.T.Road, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ principle officer. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurbax Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased the marble for fitting in house, vide bill dated 28.10.2014 for Rs.8001/- from Opposite Party. After purchasing the said marble from Opposite Party, the complainant got fitted the same in his house by employing the labour and the said marble, which one is of Oman Red colour, was got fitted as outline/ border and design on the flooring by the complainant. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the colour of said marble got faded and the original shine and luster gave away within a days of its fitting which gave the very shabby look to the total flooring and the complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party who deputed its officials who inspected the said marble supplied by the Opposite Party and candidly admitted that the marble is of inferior quality and it needs replacement. The complainant thereafter made several futile visits to the Opposite Party for the replacement of the said marble and to pay the price of extracting and refitting of the marble and the loss to the other places of the marble alongwith which the said marble is fitted, but the Opposite Party flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the defective marble with the good quality marble of the same colour and size and in alternative refund the amount of Rs.8001/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that admittedly the complainant purchased the marble from the Opposite Party, but all other allegations made in this complaint, are denied. However, the Opposite Party sells the marble as received from Rajasthan and is distributor and not the manufacturer of the marble and the same is natural stone/ marble which is being received by the Opposite Party and used to sell the same to his customers and marble issued to be of same variety with different colours, so the present complaint is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the alleged effect in the marble can occur due to the mishandling and misuse by the complainant and the mason who fitted the same due to wrong cutting and not fitting and polishing properly, etc. and there is no fault of the Opposite Party in the same. Even otherwise, the Opposite Party during the period prior to this sale of marble to complainant and after such deal, sold same variety of the marble to various customers, but no complaint of any kind is received from any corner till date, hence the entire version of the complainant is false and the Opposite Party is not liable for any replacement or any thing else to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Parkash Jhawar Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and affidavit of Sh.Manohar Singh @ Bunti Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased the marble from Opposite Party vide bill dated 28.10.2014 (Ex.C2) for Rs.8001/-. The complainant got fitted the same in his house as outline/ border and design on the flooring by the complainant. Complainant submitted that the colour of marble got faded and the original shine and luster gave away within a days of its fitting and now it looks very shabby. The complainant informed the Opposite Party who also inspected the said marble The complainant requested the Opposite Party for the replacement of the said marble and to pay the price of extracting and refitting of the marble and the loss to the other places of the marble alongwith, but the Opposite Party did not accede to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the complainant purchased the marble from the Opposite Party which is natural stone/ marble. The Opposite Party sold the same to the complainant as received by the Opposite Party. There was no guarantee/ warranty regarding the colour, shine or luster of the marble in question nor any such warrantee or guarantee could be given nor was given by the Opposite Party to the complainant. Opposite Party denied that said marble colour got faded and it has lost his original shine or luster or that it looks shabby. Opposite Party further denied that the complainant ever approached the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party admitted that the marble is of inferior quality as alleged by the complainant. Marble supplied by the Opposite Party to the complainant was received from Rajasthan and is natural marble/ stone. The defect, if any could occur due to mishandling and mismanagement by mason, as a result of wrong cutting, fitting and polishing properly, etc. Opposite Party has sold the same marble to various customers and no complaint of any kind is received from any customer. Opposite Party is, therefore, not liable for any replacement of the marble, etc. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the marble in question i.e. 100 feet Oman Red marble on 28.10.2014 from Opposite Party vide bill Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.8001/- and the complainant got fitted the same as outline/ border and design on the flooring of his house. Complainant submitted that the colour of marble got faded and the original shine and luster gave away within a few days of its fitting and now it looks very shabby. The Opposite Party has sold the marble in question to the complainant ‘as it is’ which he has received from Rajasthan. Opposite Party has never given any warranty/ guarantee of colour, shade, shining and luster of the marble in question to the complainant as is evident from the bill/ invoice Ex.C2. The marble is multi shaded and not a single shaded marble. Generally, the marble changes its colour, shade and shine after grinding and polishing of the same. Opposite Party can not be held liable if the marble has changed its shining, luster or colour because it is the natural marble and not prepared by the Opposite Party. So, the Opposite Party can not be held liable, if there is any change in colour, shining or luster of the marble after fitting, grinding or polishing. As such, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 20-08-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
