DATE OF FILING : 18.3.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.59/2009

Between

Complainant : Jom C. Michael,

Chamakkalayil House

Muttam P.O.,

Thodupuzha – 685 587

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Prince J. Pananal)

And

Opposite Party : The Managing Director,

Surabhi Supreme Marbles

And Granites (Pvt) Ltd.,

III/133 Padayattil House,

Kalloopalam Road,

Angamali – 683 572

Ernakulam District.

(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)

O R D E R
 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant is conducting a Textile Shop at Thodupuzha with the partnership of his wife and father-in-law for his livelihood in the name and style “Chamakkalayil Silks”. The complainant approached the opposite party shop at Angamaly for purchase of 1550 square feet of Jubrana G.T.24x12 model granite tiles and 110 square feet of Tiger Skin G.T.24x12 model granite tiles for total cost of Rs.93,500/- for the renovation of textile shop. At the time of purchase, the opposite party assured that the tiles will be in the same design and same colour, 8 of them were displayed by the opposite party in the same colour and design. Attracted by the display, the complainant ordered the same. On 13.3.09, the opposite party delivered the tiles at Thodupuzha, and the complainant paid Rs.93,620/- including Rs.120/- as driver's bata to the opposite party. But the opposite party supplied bill for only Rs.63,123/- On 14.3.09, when the complainant opened the tile box of Jubrana model for the flooring, it revealed that all the tiles are different in design and colour. The matter was informed to the opposite party and the officer of the opposite party replied that the opposite party is in a trip and the matter can be decided after his arrival. But the complainant fixed March 19, as the date for the inauguration of renewed building for new saree showroom. So it needed very urgency for flooring. On 17.3.09, the complainant approached opposite party after the arrival of the opposite party, for getting the tiles of the same design and colour by replacing 514 numbers of Jubrana model tiles. But the opposite party denied the same and told that after excluding the tax and expenses met by them for transportation, the opposite party was only ready to replace the balance tiles. The complainant caused Rs.50,000/- as loss from his business and the petition is filed against unfair trade practice of the opposite party and also for compensation.

2. The opposite party filed a written version submitting that the opposite party has no branch for conducting business in Idukki district and so this petition is not maintainable before this Forum. Manufacturers of the tiles are M/s.Sree Baba Granites, Bangalore and he is a necessary party for this petition. The opposite party never supplied the disputed tiles to the complainant. The tiles were sold to one Mr.Binil Mathew, Chemplayil House, Thodupuzha. The complainant is having textile shops at Muttom, Thodupuha and Pala. So the textile shop is not running for his self employment.

3. At the time of purchase several models of tiles were shown to the persons who approached there. It is also admitted that the granite tiles are natural material and there will be variation in colour. So the tiles should be floored by selecting the tiles from different boxes. The disputed tiles are never packed in the basis of the colour. There is difference in colours in the packets containing 6 numbers of tiles. That is why the price of tiles are very low. If granite slabs are purchasing, the same design and colour can be selected. Then the cost will be higher. Complainant used some of the tiles and after that, from the doubt of somebody, he used Vertified Tiles for further flooring. In order to get rid of the balance tiles, this petition is filed with false reasons. The opposite party never supplied tiles to the complainant at Thodupuzha. The tiles were purchased from the opposite party showroom at Angamali. The complainant never paid Rs.93620/- to the opposite party. The complainant paid only Rs.63132/- to the opposite party. The difference in colour of the tiles were described at the time of the purchase. And there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
 

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs1 to 4 and Exts. P1 to P4 and MO1(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Commissioner was examined as PW3 and Exts.C1 to C3 marked.
 

6. The POINT :- The complainant purchased Jubrana model granite tiles from the opposite party for flooring them in his textile shop for about 1550 square feet. But when the boxes of the tiles were opened there were difference in colour and design in the tiles. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the estimate issued by the opposite party which is for Rs.1,02,600/-. Ext.P2 is the estimate of the opposite party on 13.3.2009 for Rs.93,983/-. Ext.P3 is the bill issued by the opposite party on 13.3.2009 for Rs.63,132/- for the purchase of the tiles. The tiles were purchased for the inauguration of the new saree showroom of the complainant. PW1 decided to inaugurate the showroom on 19^th March, 2009. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by PW1 for the inauguration of the new showroom. The purchase was done by the manager of PW1. The tiles were delivered by the opposite party in their vehicle at the shop of the PW1. At the time of purchase they displayed 8 numbers of the tiles of the same colour and design and assured that the tiles purchased by them will be of the same colour and design. About 550 square feet of the tiles were floored in the textile showroom of the PW1. The balance were not floored because of the difference in colour and design. PW2 is the manager of PW1 who deposed that, at the time of purchase and before purchase the opposite party described about the tiles and its flooring. The transportation charges were given by the opposite party company and it was delivered in their lorry. The opposite party showed 8 numbers of tiles of the same colour and design and demonstration was conducted for flooring them. PW3 is the commissioner who inspected the tiles of the opposite party showroom. The commission report is marked as Ext.C1 and estimate so produced is marked as Ext.C2. As per Ext.C2, the value of the Jubrana tiles 2/1 size is Rs.58 and it comes Rs.81,200/- as the price for 1400 square feet tiles. Ext.C3 (series) is the photograph produced by the commissioner. As per PW3, the tiles were purchased by the complainant at a rate of Rs.58/-. PW4 is the mason who done the flooring work of the complainant's showroom. PW4 deposed that about 500 sqare feet of jubrana tile flooring was done by him which was done in the night because it was needed to open the showroom very next day. PW4 is an experienced person and he deposed that jubrana tiles can get in same colour and design and he used the same colour and design in a house at Vannappuram. Office manager of the opposite party is examined as DW1. He deposed that all the tiles are having bar coding and the last 2 digits are mentioned as the measurement of the tiles and not the cost price of the tiles. The cost of the MO1 (series) tiles comes around Rs.55/- to Rs.58/-. There are 8 numbers in MO1 (series) and all are different colours and designs. When the commissioner approached the opposite party for inspection the colour of the tiles displayed were reddish black and it is written in the showroom that there will be difference in colour and design for jubrana tiles. It was pointed to the commissioner. Ext.P3 bill was given from the opposite party showroom. Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 bills were not issued from the opposite party. But Ext.P3 is the bill from the opposite party and the price written in it is the rate of granite tile and not for the jubrana tile.

The only dispute is that whether the jubrana tiles are available in same colour and design, whether the opposite party assured that the jubrana tiles will get in the same colour and design.  It is admitted by the opposite party that the tiles were supplied by them and Ext.P3 bill was also issued by them.Ext.R1 is the notice issued by the opposite party at the time of purchase of tiles describing about the quality of the tiles, the selection of the tiles etc. As per the opposite party Ext.P3 bill which comes to an amount for Rs.63,132/-, was given by them. And Ext.P1 estimate also admitted by the opposite party. Ext.P2 estimate which comes to Rs.93,983/- is not admitted by the opposite party. So as per Ext.P3 the tiles were purchased by Bilil Mathew, Chembalayil House, Thodupuzha. PW1 deposed that he is the manager of the PW1 who is examined as PW2. Ext.P2 proves that the tiles were purchased by the complainant. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by PW1 for inviting the public for the inauguration of his new showroom on 19^th March at 10.00 am. It means that the complainant was busy with the opening ceremony of the new showroom. Ext.C3 (series) are the photographs of the floor tiles in the complainant's building. As per report of the commissioner about 550 square feet were floored with 275 granite tiles which are the disputed tiles. The tiles floored were in 14 different colours and designs. The designs are not joining. Ext.C3 photographs also shows the tiles floored are not looking good because the designs and colours are not matching. PW1 constrained to floor these tiles in a sudden incident because he was in busy with the inauguration of new showroom. PW4 who is the mason engaged in the work of flooring tiles, deposed that it was needed to open the showroom and so the tiles floored eventhough the designs and colour were not matching. As per PW1 and PW2, the opposite party assured that the colour and design of the tiles will match, at the time of purchase of the tiles. According to PW3, the commissioner who inspected the opposite party showroom, there was a display of the tiles where the tiles of each pair were with same colour and design, and were matching. DW1 deposed that it is written in the showroom of the opposite party, the jubrana tiles will not match the colour and design. The jubrana tiles have variation in colour and design. The matter was pointed to the commissioner who inspected the premise.

So we think that the complainant purchased the tiles as per the assurance given by the opposite party about design and colour. But the tiles were of different colour and design and were not matching. The complainant floored these tiles because the opening dated of the showroom arrived shortly. The MO1 (series), 8 in numbers, are also different in colour and design. As per Ext.C3 photographs, produced by the commissioner, the design and colour of tiles are not matching. So the complainant never used the balance tiles supplied by the opposite party and they are kept in safe custody of the complainant with the presence of the commissioner. PW1 was very urgent to floor his showroom because the inauguration of the new showroom was fixed on 19^th March as per Ext.P4. The tiles purchased by the complainant were different in colour and design and he constrained to purchase vertified tiles for the flooring of the balance portion of the showroom. So the complainant was caused much hardship and mental agony because of the same. When PW1 contacted the opposite party, the office staff has told that the opposite party is at abroad and the matter may describe after the arrival of the opposite party. But when the opposite party arrived, he was not ready to replace the tiles or pay the amount paid by the complainant. So it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So we think that it is proper to give back the amount paid by the complainant by taking the balance tiles, because the complainant already floored the showroom with the vertified tiles. The complainant may have caused mental agony and hardship because the inauguration was fixed on 19^th March. Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as compensation for the hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant. As per Ext.P1 the rate of tiles fixed by the opposite party is Rs.56.50/- (2x1 size) which is admitted by the opposite party also. It is admitted by the opposite party that the tiles were delivered in the lorry of the opposite party at the disputed showroom of the complainant. So the cause of action of the case is partially occurred in Idukki district.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to take back the balance “Jubrana” model tiles purchased by complainant and kept in the custody of the complainant in the presence of the commissioner, and return the price of the tiles which is fixed as Rs.56.50/- as per Ext.P1 and Ext.C1 commission report. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and mental agony caused to them and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month from the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Jom C. Michael

PW2 - Binil Mathew

PW3 - K.M. Sanu

PW4 - Binoy Mathew

On the side of the Opposite party :

DW1 - Jose P.R.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Estimate dated 11.3.2009, issued by the opposite party for Rs.1,02,600/-.

Ext.P2 - Estimate dated 13.3.2009, issued by the opposite party for Rs.93,983/-.

Ext.P3 - Bill dated 13.3.2009, issued by the opposite party for Rs.63,132/-.

Ext.P4 - Notice issued by the complainant for the inauguration of the new showroom named as 'Vajrakala'.

Ext.C1 - The Commission Report dated 23.3.2009.

Ext.C2 - Estimate for the item 'Jubrana' for Rs.81,200/-.

Ext.C3(series) - Photographs produced by the Commissioner (10 numbers) and their negatives.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Ext.R1 - Brochure describing about the quality, selection etc. of the tiles and such other things about the use of it.