Order no.2 Date: 16.06.2023
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present
The case is taken up for admission hearing.
Perused and considered the complaint application.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.
It has been stated by the complainant that he purchased tiles on 10.02.2022 from opposite party no.3 on payment of Rs.19,070/- (Rupees nineteen thousand seventy) only. The tiles were delivered to his residence on 12.02.2022. It is further stated that due to work of renovation, the complainant was residing elsewhere. At the end of February, 2022 the work of bathroom was completed and while checking the same, the complainant found the colour of the tiles of the bathroom was not up to the mark as the colour and glossiness of the tiles which was chosen by him at the time of purchase, were not delivered to him. The tiles delivered were found to be lighter colour and haziness. In the 1st week of March, 2022, he informed the opposite parties about the defective goods sold to him but they did not pay any heed to it.
On 11.04.2022, the complainant returned three unused boxes of Toronto Blue tiles amounting to Rs.1,398/- (Rupees one thousand three hundred ninety eight) only but till date the opposite party no.3 has not refunded the money to him. Finding no other alternative, on 18.05.2022 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties through his advocate under registered post. Thereafter, one Mr. Subrata visited the place of the complainant and prepared a job sheet and recorded the grievances of the complainant and manufacturing defect of the tiles but he has not handed over the job sheet to the complainant. On 13.06.2022 the opposite parties gave a reply to the complainant denying his claim. According to the complainant, the opposite party no.1 is liable to refund Rs.19,070/- (Rupees nineteen thousand seventy) only and is under further obligation to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only for harassment, damages, mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only.
It is apparent from the face of the record, that the complainant alleged that the delivered tiles were not up to the mark and the colour of the tiles were not same as he had chosen from the catalogue of the opposite parties. From the reply dated 13.06.2022 of the opposite parties, it appears that though they had denied the allegations made by the complainant but in order to maintain business relations with its clients, the opposite parties offered to replace the alleged defective tiles. It is also apparent from the reply that the complainant insisted for payment of laying charges of the tiles and other damages which the opposite parties refused.
Having regard to the above discussions and the reply dated 13.06.2022 sent by the opposite parties, it is crystal clear that the opposite parties were ready to replace the defective tiles if any. The complainant could have returned the alleged defective tiles to the opposite parties before laying the same in the bathroom. Instead of returning the alleged defective tiles, the complainant had chosen to affix the tiles in his bathroom. Though the complainant alleged that on 11.04.2022 he returned three unused boxes of tiles amounting to Rs.1,398/- (Rupees one thousand three hundred ninety eight) only but opposite party no.3 till date has not refunded the money to him but this allegation has not mentioned by the complainant in his letter dated 18.05.2022 addressed to the opposite parties. No document has also been filed by the complainant that he returned unused three boxes of tiles to opposite party no.3. There is no allegation in a single line against the opposite parties that they are liable for deficiency in service. The only allegation made by the complainant that due to non-refund of Rs.19,070/- (Rupees nineteen thousand seventy) only he suffer metal agony and harassment.
It is crystal clear that the opposite parties offered the complainant to replace the defective tiles which they sold to the complainant.
Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties. Consequently there is no cause of action to file the case.
We do not find any prima facie merit for which the instant case cannot be admitted.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.
