BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.: 7 of 2014.

                                                            Date of Institution: 02.12014.

                                                            Date of Decision: 20.3.2015.

Rajbir Singh son of Shri Uggarsain, resident of village Chang, district Bhiwani.

                                                            ….Complainant.

                                  Versus.

Jitender Singh, partner M/s Swastic Ceramics Ltd. Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

…...Respondent.

                 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Sitting: -    Shri B.D.Yadav, President,

                 Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                 Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:    Shri C.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the complainant.  

Shri Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent.

O R D E R

                 The case of the complainant in brief, is that he has been purchasing tiles from the respondent and making payment regularly, hence he is consumer qua respondent. The complainant alleged that the tiles supplied by the respondent are of poor qualities which are not fitted properly. The complainant further alleged that the Mason told that the tiles are zig-zag and due to that not laid down properly and thus left the work without completing the same. The complainant further alleged that the respondent was requested to replace the same but he threatened him and flatly refused to replace the same and had given warning. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of respondent he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.               Respondent on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the tiles purchased by the complainant were of second quality and the customer himself purchased the second/third quality tiles willfully. It is further submitted that the complainant had purchased the tiles without any invoice and had never made any complaint about the alleged inferior quality. It is further submitted that there may be defect in the fixation of tiles by the mason. Even otherwise also the second and third quality tiles do not reflect impression on the floor. It is further submitted that at the time of selecting the tiles the complainant was clearly told about the above said disclaimer which constitute a contract between the parties and there is no guarantee of the tiles after fixing or laying the same. It is further submitted that the complainant has not followed the instruction printed on the carton of the tiles and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.               Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.

4.               We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.

5.              Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the tiles supplied by the respondent were of inferior quality which are not affixed properly and the Mason had left the work without completing the same due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses, so he is entitled for compensation. In our view, this plea of Ld. Counsel for the complainant has no substance because the complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there is some defect in the tiles supplied by the respondent Moreover, if there was any defect in the tiles supplied by the respondent, it was the duty of the complainant to return the same at the initial stage but he has failed to do so with the reason best known to him. The further argument of Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that respondent as well as his brother have threatened him when he made complaint regarding the defective tiles. In our view, this plea of Ld. Counsel for the complainant has no substance because from such contents a criminal offence is made out and it was the duty of the complainant to made a criminal complaint or to report to the Police Station, so this Forum has got no jurisdiction in this regard. Moreover, from the perusal of photo stat copy of bill the complainant had purchased the tiles on 14.6.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on 2.1.2014 i.e. after the expiry of one and half years  which shows some ulterior motive on the part of complainant. Furthermore, neither the legal notice has been issued upon the respondent prior to filing of the complaint  nor any expert opinion or corroborative evidence has been brought on record to prove that the tiles supplied by the respondent were  of inferior quality. The complainant has also failed to mention the name of the manufacturing company in his complaint and the manufacturer has not been impleaded as respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above there is no merit in the present complaint and same stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 20.3.2015.                               President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

 (Balraj Singh)       (Anita Sheoran)

  Member               Member,