IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Mr. Devaiah C.S s/o. C.P. Somanna, aged 34 years, resident of Kodamburu Village, Murnad Post, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District against the opponent Mr.T. Johny, Proprietor, “Shilpi Productions, Balugodu, Bittangala, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District to direct the opponent to rectify the work already done by replacing the materials with good quality as promised by him at the time in the beginning of the work and repay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- which is over payment made by the complainant to the opponent with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till its realization for committing deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. The complainant is running homestay in his coffee estate situated within the limits of Kodamburu Village.  The opponent is engaged in the manufacture, installation of tiles and bricks, cerb stones and other allied materials in the name and style of “Shilpi Productions”.  The complainant has approached the opponent with intention to install interlocks tiles and bricks to outside the cottages of his homestay.  The opponent represented and promised the complainant that the interlock tiles or bricks manufactured by him are all top quality, unbreakable, can withstand more than twenty tons of weight and even loaded lorry can pass on it.  On the representation and promise of the opponent the complainant asked the opponent to give quotation of the work.  The opponent has inspected the spot and after measuring the area of installation of interlocks tiles and cerb stones has issued a quotation dated 09/09/2014 to complete the work with finishing.

3. The opponent while work in progress has increased the laying area from 6050Sqft up to 2000 sqft and promised to finish the whole work to the satisfaction of the complainant at the rate quoted by him.  The complainant while the work in progress observed that the opponent was laying the interlock tiles and not finishing but only continued laying interlock tiles.  When laying was partially completed the complainant noticed that the opponent has not installed the interlock tiles/ bricks properly without taking gradient and many of the tiles were loosely installed and many of the installed bricks were broken and surface became uneven and edges were not properly made.  The opponent inspite of the request made by the complainant to rectify the errors did not take necessary steps and replace the damaged tiles.

4. It is further averred that the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the opponent on various dates including an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- on 09/09/2014.  The opponent has issued a bill dated 23/11/2015 claiming that he has completed 11278Sqft work, but the complainant has doubted the quantity of work done by the opponent as stated in the bill.  According to the complainant the work done by the opponent was to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- and has paid excess amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the opponent though he has supplied inferior quality materials and did sub-standard work.  Therefore, the complainant has got issued legal notice dates 23/12/2015 to the opponent calling upon him to rectify the work already done by him replacing with quality materials as promised by him in the beginning.  The opponent after receipt of the notice has given evasive reply.  Hence this complaint.

5. The opponent after the service of notice appeared through his learned counsel and filed written version admitting that he is running Shilpi Productions and has given quotation for installation of interlocks tiles/ bricks and the work done by him is standard.  It is the case of opponent that the complainant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the material and work to be carried out by him but the complainant has failed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The opponent has supplied superior quality of materials as selected by the complainant and he has finished the work entrusted to him by the complainant to his satisfaction.  The opponent has denied rest of the allegations made against him.  The complainant to escape from paying the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has cooked up story and filed the false complaint.

6. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced 10 documents including 23 photographs with C.D.  The opponent filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced Xerox copy of advance receipt dated 09/09/2014. 

7. The learned counsel for the complainant and opponent have submitted written arguments and the  points that would arise for determinations are as under.

1. Whether the complainant proves that the opponent has supplied inferior quality interlock tiles/bricks and installed in the cottage premises which amounts to deficiency in service?

2. What order?

8. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

9. The complainant and opponent in their affidavit evidence have re-iterated the facts narrated in the complaint and written version.   There is no dispute with regard to work carried out by the opponent in the area of cottage put up by the complainant in his coffee estate located in Sy.No.158/2 measuring 1 acre 60 cents of Kodamburu village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District.  The complainant in the written arguments submitted that he is running Homestay for his livelihood.  The complainant has filed an application under order XXVI rule 9 of CPC to appoint a Court Commissioner to make local inspection of the spot i.e. where the tiles has been installed by the opponent and report the quality of the tiles and work carried out by him.  That one Mr. Sharath P.S, Civil Engineer, Kushalngar was appointed as Court Commissioner and after issuing notice to both the parties the commissioner has visited the site on 23/10/2018 at 10 a.m.  The Court Commissioner after making local inspection has submitted detailed report along with postal receipt for sending notice to the parties and few photographs of the spot.

10. After submitting report by the commissioner on 28/11/2018 an opportunity was given by this Forum on 01/12/2018 to both the parties to submit objections to the commissioner’s report on 15/12/2018.  On 15/12/2018 both the parties and counsel were absent, no representation on behalf of them hence, it was taken that both parties have no objections to the commissioner’s report.  On the next hearing date i.e. on 29/12/2018 the learned counsel for the complainant has advanced their oral arguments since already both parties have submitted the written arguments.  Further on the said day also the opponent and his learned counsel were remained absent.  The Commissioner Civil Engineer has sent notice on 17/10/2018 to the opponent by registered post and for that they have produced the postal receipt.  As already observed that neither parties have challenged the  commissioner’s report.

11. The commissioner Civil Engineer in their report stated that after inspection they found the following defects;

1. The ground has not leveled before making or laying of the interlocks.
2. The edge restraints are not properly located to minimize cutting of block.
3. The materials which used in block are not brought by any authorized agency like sand or the crusher stone.
4. The interlock block molding are not in a good shape, hence the shape and the edges and the locking points of the block are not coming out in a good manner to hold a stable strength on ground.
5. The ground has not filled with 1.5 inch of sand which can bring out a level, that’s the main cause of blocks dismantling.
6. Not placing of bedding sand, joint sealing sand and concrete block from delivery points to the laying face made a bad impression in work which makes the works no use at all but collapse in a month.

12. The Commissioner stated that the above few major missing methods are cause in the total damage of the interlocks.  According to the commissioner the complainant might have sustained loss more than lakhs.  On verification they found that it has to be removed and relayed with good materials used block with neat finished edged surface.  Commissioner in addition to his report has produced photos taken at the spot which shows uneven laying of the bricks and broken bricks.  The commissioner has inspected the spot after two years from the completion of the work made by the opponent.  But the complainant has produced 23 photograph along with the complaint of the area where the opponent has installed tiles along with CD.  The complaint has been filed on 04/06/2016 within few months from the completion of the work by the opponent.  The photos produced by the complainant and commissioner are similar.  The photos produced by the complainant and commissioner shows that many of the tiles have broken and we may find uneven installation of the tiles.  Further edges of the tiles can be seen in the photographs.

13. Already in the preceding paragraph it is observed that the opponent have not filed objections to the commissioner’s report with regard to quality of the tiles used by the opponent and the manner of the installation of the tiles made by him.  By seeing the photographs produced by the complainant and the photographs taken by the commissioner along with his report we may arrive to a conclusion that the opponent has used inferior quality of interlocks tiles/ bricks, laying of the tiles is not proper and finishing is not correct.  Therefore, the complainant shall have to replace all the tiles laid by the opponent by purchasing good quality tiles.

14. The opponent contention is that out of Rs.8,00,000/- bill amount still the complainant is due a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The complainant to escape from the liability of paying Rs.2,50,000/- has come up with this false complaint.  The complainant along with the complaint produced advance receipt dated 09/09/2014 for Rs.50,000/-.  Further produced receipt No.17, dated 31/10/2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-, receipt No.301, dated 30/12/2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-, receipt No.401 dated 10/02/2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- and receipt No.18 dated 09/03/2015 for Rs.2,00,000/-.  All these printed receipts have been issued by the opponent.  The opponent has issued another receipt dated 20/01/2015 on the letter head of Shilpi Productions for Rs.2,50,000/-.  The opponent has not denied the receipts produced by the complainant. If all these receipts amount is taken in to consideration the opponent has received Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant on various dates.  Therefore, there is no force in the contention of opponent that still the complainant is liable to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards his work.  All these receipts bearing the signature of opponent.  The hand written receipts which is on the letter head of opponent bears the signature of complainant and opponent. 

15. In view of the above circumstances and considering the commissioner’s report and the photographs produced by the complainant we may say that the complainant has supplied inferior quality interlocks tiles/bricks without proper cutting of the edges installed them as a result most of the tiles have broken.  Therefore, the goods supplied by the opponent are defective i.e. inferior quality and service rendered by him for laying the interlock tiles is deficient as a result the tiles have broken.  Therefore, it is not necessary to direct the opponent to replace the tiles used by him and in the interest of justice he may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant same was received by him towards the work undertaken by him.  In addition to that the opponent shall liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  Accordingly,we proceed to pass the following ;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Mr.Devaiah C.S s/o. C.P. Somanna is allowed directing the opponent to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 04/06/2016 till its realization.  In addition to that the opponent shall liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant.

2. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 05^th day of JANUARY, 2019)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                     (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                             MEMBER