By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

       The complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Complaint in short is as follows:-

1.         Complainant decided to renovate his house, which is more than 75-year-old, by availing loan from Kerala Gramin Bank. He approached opposite party and the opposite party told that the quality white marble is available with them and laying of the marbles will beautify his house. The employees of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and told that 38 slabs will be required for the work and they will carry out the work. The opposite party said that slab worth Rs.140 per sq ft and 80 rupees will be the labor cost per sq ft.  The complainant agreed for the same and the people of the opposite party assessed everything and agreed that they will bring the tiles and carry out the work. Accordingly the opposite party brought granite slabs to the house and the work also carried out. The complainant provided supporting other materials also. The complainant paid rupees 20,000/- as advance and thereafter 2,76,450/- rupees while bringing the slab. The opposite party received the entire amount on 29/07/2016. All the work including flooring and polishing of the tile were done by the opposite party. The granite brought by the opposite party was seen pasted with some materials. It could see that the marble laid was lesser quality and could find cracks on marble while rubbing with nails. It is also noted that black lines over the tiles.  The complainant reported the same to the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to replace the entire defective slab. The complainant spends around 2, 00,000/- rupees for flooring the granite slab. He paid almost 3, 00,000/- rupees as cost of the slab. The appearance of the work not being up to the standard, the complainant and the family has got mental agony.

2.         The opposite party had told to the complainant that the granite delivered to the complainant was best quality and costly one. The work was done by the workers of the opposite party. But later it was told that the work was done as sub contract. The remuneration for the work was received through a person called “Mesthri”. The opposite party received cost of the product Rs.2, 96,450/-.  The opposite party issued 2 separate bills considering the tax issue. The complainant was not aware of the fact that dual bill issued by the opposite party was to escape from the payment of tax. If it was known to the complainant, complainant ought not to have engaged opposite party. The opposite party was trying to mislead the complainant by beautifying the tiles using paste at the time of purchase. Though the complainant approached opposite party and government servants, there was no rectification of the defect. The opposite party had agreed to replace the same but he has not done it. Hence the complainant lost 5,00,000/- rupees and so the prayer is to refund the same with appropriate other remedies.

3.         On admission of the complaint issued notice to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version denying the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The opposite party denied that the opposite party people reached at the residence of the complainant, measurement was taken, told that 38 slabs required, agreed to lay and polish the tile, stated 140 rupees as the cost of the tile per sq ft, labor cost as 80 rupees per sq ft, under taken to do everything, opposite party availed granite slab at the residence of the complainant, work was completed, articles were given by the complainant, the opposite party received 2,96,450/- rupees towards the cost of the granite. The opposite party denied that the flooring and polishing work was done by the workers of the opposite party, the granite was modified using a particular type of paste, the opposite party received entire money after finishing the work, on examination found marbles was bad quality one, on drawing by nail it was found crack over the tile, black lines overs the tile, the opposite party availed several months to finish the work etc. The opposite party stated that he had not agreed to replace the entire defective slab, the work was done by sub-contractor and the amount of rupees 2,96,450/- was received by opposite party, bill was issued to the complainant, the bill was issued separately to avoid tax payment, laps of time bring the defects of the tiles more visible etc. are not correct hence denied by the opposite party.

4.         The opposite party contended that the averments in the complaint is not specific that what sort of flooring material was purchased by the complainant, since some parts in the complaint it is stated granite slabs and on other parts it is stated as marble. The defect also not specific in the complaint that what sort of defect is caused to the flooring material. It is also not specific whether the defect was to the tiles or to the flooring work.

5.         The opposite party submitted that they are selling flooring materials and they are not doing flooring work or polishing work. There is no person called ‘Mesthri working under the opposite party. Opposite party has not received any amount towards the laying work of the tile. The opposite party is not responsible for payment of money to any person as stated in the complaint.

6.         The opposite party submitted that they issued 23.141 sqm granite slab as per invoice number 1711 dated 29/07/2016. The opposite party received 22,522/- rupees from the complainant. The opposite party had not issued any document except the tax invoice and the opposite party has no such practice also. The opposite party stated that they are purchasing products from out of state as per tax invoice and the same is selling through the opposite party as per tax invoice. The opposite party has not issued an estimate dated 29/03/2016 or any sort of measurement slip to the complainant. The opposite party has not sold any article to the complainant on 29/03/2016.

7.         The allegation that the damaged tile was modified with a particular type of paste is not correct. If it was correct the complainant could have returned the same before laying the tiles. As per the document produced by the complainant the product involved in this complaint is Vietnam white marble. But the opposite party issued granite slab to the complainant. So, any defect caused to the material which is purchased from elsewhere for which the opposite party is not responsible.  The opposite party submit that there are certain organizations without license or registration and they are doing illegal business with flooring materials. The above stated business people using the bills issued by the opposite party might have transported granite slab.

8.         The opposite party submit that the complainant never approached opposite party alleging defect to the materials.  The opposite party has not done any work receiving remuneration from the complaint and the opposite party is not liable to pay anything to the complainant. The complainant has to prove defects caused to the granite slabs which was purchased from the opposite party.  Opposite party submit that they sold granite slabs to the complainant which is a natural product. There is no chance to cause defect to the natural product. The materials used during the fixation of the tiles may cause defects to the tiles. The opposite party submit that the defects may be due to various reasons and so the alleged defects to the natural product is not the responsibility of the opposite party. The complainant could have brought to the notice of the opposite party about the defects of the tiles at the time of laying itself.

9.         Complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents in lieu of evidence. Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is copy of estimate dated 26/03/2016. Ext. A2 is copy of written measurement details. Ext. A3 is retail invoice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 29/06/2016. No documents filed by the opposite party. The report of expert commissioner marked as Ext. C1.

10        Heard complainant and opposite party. Perused affidavit and documents.

            The following points arise for consideration:-

1) Whether the product issued to the complainant was marble or granite?

2) Whether the product was defective or not?

3) Relief and cost?

11.       Point No.1

The complainant as part of renovation of his house approached opposite party and purchased products from the opposite party.  The complainant stated that he purchased marble from the opposite party. At the same time, he has stated that the opposite party did flooring work with granite slab after receiving 2,96,450/- rupees. The opposite party contended that the averment of complainant is in consistent since he has stated purchase of marbles and also purchase of granite slabs. So the contention of the opposite party is that complainant is not certain about the product which purchased from opposite party.

12.       In this complaint the complainant has taken an expert Commission for the examination of defective product. The commissioner filed a report which is marked as Ext. C1. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party has filed objection against the report of Commissioner. The commissioner examined the defective product on 20/08/2020 in presence of both the complainant and opposite party. He reported that he has no idea about the color of the marble at the time of purchase but the marble floored in the house is in a fade condition. He has stated that the chemical composition of the marble is CaCO3 and at present the appearance of the marble is not in a good quality. He also reported that minute cracks and color fading is noticed on the floored slab of marble.  He reported that the cracks may be natural. In the absence of any objection from both side it can be concluded that the product which was used for flooring was marble. So, there is no question of dispute regarding the product which was used by the complainant for the renovation of the house. There is no doubt the marble was the product which was used by the complaint for renovation of the house, the first point answered accordingly.

13.       Point No.2

The opposite party has got a case that he has not issued documents A1 and A2 to the complainant. But at the same time the opposite party admit that Ext. A3 is issued by them. Ext. A3 is a retail invoice which involves a total sum of Rs.22,522/-. The product covered by the retail invoice is granite slab. The opposite party has not filed any objection against C1 document, which is the disputed product in the complaint. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party issued Ext. A3 document and using the A3 document certain organizations who are not having license or registration, using the A3 bill might have transported disputed product. But the complainant submit that he purchased disputed article from the opposite party for Rs.2,96,450/-and out of that amount, 20,000/- rupees was given in advance. Ext. A1 document is an estimate with the customer details of complainant. It also describes the product as Viyatnam white slabs – 38 and also 998.18 box/ quantity. The total amount shown as Rs.2,96,459.46/-. There is separate endorsement regarding the calculation of earlier payment and the balance amount. Ext. A2 is measurement which shows 38 pieces and also quantity of 998.18. The document also finds a place for the Viyatnam white. The affidavit of the complainant and the averment in the complaint tally with the documents Ext. A1 and A2. It is not reliable the story of the opposite party that the complainant and illegal organizations joined together and tried to black mail the opposite party using Ext. A3 document. The commission is under the view the complainant purchased product from the opposite party as per Ext. A1 and A2.

14.       Ext. C1 document, the report of geologist categorically stated that the appearance of the marble is not in a good quality but in a fade condition. Commission also reported that there is crack and color fading on the floored slab of marble. Hence it can be seen that the case of the complainant that the product was bad quality stands proved through Ext. C1 document and act of opposite party amounts unfair trade practice.

15.       Pont No.3

The complainant decided to renovate his house which is old about 75 years

using marbles slabs. He purchased the product worth Rs.2,96,450/-. The claim of the complainant is that the opposite party not only provided the product but the work was also carried out by the opposite party. Complainant submitted that the opposite party provided workers, laid tiles and remuneration was collected through a person called a Mesthri. The opposite party opposed the contention of the complainant and submitted that they are only engaged in selling the product and not engaging flooring work. According to opposite party there is no a person working under the opposite party as “mesthri “. The complainant has not produced any document to show that the flooring work was done by the opposite party. There is no document to show for payment of remuneration towards the flooring work. So, it cannot be treated that the flooring work was done by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. There is no document to show the exact expense incurred for flooring work.

16.       It can be seen that the attempt of the complainant was to renovate his house which is more than 75 years old using costly white marbles. He approached opposite party for the purpose and the opposite party delivered to the complainant lesser quality marbles stating they are high quality product. But within short period the complainant could realize the product supplied by the opposite party was not good quality one. Aggrieved by that complainant approached the opposite party and officials but there was no redressal of grievance. So, the complainant approached this Commission to refund 5,00,000/- rupees including cost of the product and labor cost and also Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The Commission admit that the complainant might have suffered a lot of inconvenience and hardship and also mental agony due to the defective product delivered by the opposite party. But the claim of the complainant is exorbitant and the complainant is not entitled for such a fabulous amount as compensation from the opposite party. Hence, the Commission finds that Rs.1,00,000/- will be a reasonable amount towards the compensation on account of mental agony caused to the complainant. We also allow Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice of the opposite party and thereby caused hardship and inconvenience to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

17.       In the light of above fact and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice committed by opposite party through suppling low quality marbles and thereby caused inconvenience, hardships and mental agony to the complainant.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand Rupees  only)  as cost of the proceedings

The opposite party is directed comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation and cost will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

Dated this 20^th day of April, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A3

Ext.A1: Estimate dated 26/03/2016.

Ext.A2: Copy of written measurement details.

Ext A3: Retail invoice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 29/06/2016 /-.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Ext.C1: Commission report of the Geologist.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH