By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had purchased marbles worth Rs.71,000/- and granites worth Rs.14,700/- for the construction of his house from the shop of first opposite party . The second opposite party is the manager of the shop and he introduced the products and convinced the quality and speciality of the same. Due to Covid 19 decease the complainant could collect the marbles and granites from the shop of opposite parties, but his friends Including Mr. Shamsudheen approached the opposite parties and collected those marbles and granites after making payment by Mr. Shamsudheen. Since the mother of the complainant is sick he hastily completed the work with the intention of fulfilling his mother desire to settle in the new house. The opposite parties arranged workers to lay marbles and granites on the floor of the house. According to the complainant the opposite parties introduced the workers as experts in laying the marbles and granites on the floor. Even though the first opposite party assured of supervising the work, no such action was taken by the first opposite party. When the complainant found indecent and unsight way of work in laying granite and marbles on the floor, he contacted the opposite parties. When the complainant found the laying of marbles and granites on the floor were unsightly, he contacted the opposite parties for remedial action. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite parties given assurance of its neatness and beauty after polishing. Meanwhile the mother of the complainant died making hurdles to the complainant to present in the work site. At the time of polishing, it was found that cracks were formed in many parts of the marbles. It is averred that by that time, the opposite parties had collected Rs.55,000/- from the complainant. The opposite parties were convinced of the defects o the marbles and they were assured of addressing grievances in an amicable way. But the opposite parties did not take any step to settle the issue. The complainant and his friends repeatedly contacted for rectifying the defects of the marbles but the opposite parties evaded from responsibilities. Even the opposite parties tried to make a police complaint against the complainant and his friends by using the wife of first opposite party. The complainant made futile attempt with the help of Kottakkal police to get solved his grievance. According to the complainant many parts of the marbles melted when it was contacted with fire and so it is in unfinished condition. it is averred that the opposite parties sold poor quality marbles to the complainant and the workers arranged by the opposite party were also unskilled one. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant and his family. The greedy nature of the opposite parties created mental tension and time loss to the complainant. So the complainant prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The complainant also prayed for refund of Rs.71,000/- from the opposite party as the cost of the marbles incurred to the complainant and also claimed Rs.55,000/- as the labour cost incurred to the complainant. The complainant claimed 12% interest to the all above stated amount from the opposite parties. The complainant claimed another Rs.25,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.
3. The Commission admitted the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties. Meantime the complainant filed IA 237/2022 to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the factual situation of laid marbles and to take photo graphs of the same. The Commission allowed the application and an advocate commissioner was appointed as prayed by the complainant. Even though the opposite parties received notices, they remained absent before the Commission on the date of posting of case. The Commission proceeded with exparte on the opposite parties.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents. The document produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document is the copy of bill dated 16/08/2021 issued by the opposite parties to complainant. The advocate commissioner filed inspection report along with photographs and same is marked as Ext. C1 documents. The first opposite party filed version in belated stage with IA 590/2022 to condone the delay. The Commission not considered the application and version in evaluating the evidence. The Consumer Protection Act 2019 is clearly envisaged time limit for accepting version of the opposite parties.
5. Heard the complainant. Documents verified. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
1)Is there any kind of deficiency in services or unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If yes, Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1 &2
The main contentions rised in the complaint are the marbles purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties affected with poor quality and service rendered by the workers of the opposite parties are unskilled in nature resulting damages to his newly constructed house. The complainant produced the bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of purchase of marbles and granites. The copy of bill produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document reveals that complainant paid Rs.71,000/- as the cost of the marbles alone. According to the complainant he spent Rs.55,000/- as the cost of labour charges to the workers arranged by the opposite parties. After laying of marbles on the floor cracks were found on many parts of laid marbles. The marbles laid on the floor were in an unsightly manner. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite parties repeatedly to rectify the defect no action was taken. During the proceedings an advocate commission was appointed to report the factual situation of the marbles laid on the floor of the house. Advocate commissioner filed report along with photographs and its compact disc and those documents marked as Ext. C1 document. The advocate commissioner report supported the case of the complainant. No contra evidence is available in this case. So the contention rised in the complaint stands proved. The losses suffered by the complainant is very explicit from the available evidences. In the situation the case of the complainant cannot be addressed lightly. But at the same time the complainant failed adduce any kind of evidences to show the expenditure of Rs.55,000/- as the cost of labour charges. No interest is allowed as prayed in the complaint.
7. The Commission allow the complaint in the following manner.
The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.71,000/- as he cost of marbles paid by the complainant.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order; otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9% of interest per annum from date of order till realization
Dated this 15th day of February , 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: Ext. Copy of bill dated 16/08/2021 issued by the opposite parties to
Complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Ext. C1 : Expert Commissioner report.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
