BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 168/2003 Filed on 29..09..2003<br /> Dated : 30..09.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> Varghese, Thoppil House, Valiyathura,<br /> Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By Adv. Sri. Josh Rajan)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Benoy Marbles and Granites, Ambalamukku, Peroorkada – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.The Manager, M/s. Benoy Marbles and Granites, Ambalamukku, Peroorkada – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 09..02..2004 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 20..08..2008, the Forum on 30..09..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant Sri. Varghese is a contractor. The 1st opposite party is M/s. Benoy Marbles and Granites and 2nd opposite party is its Manager. The complainant approached the opposite parties for purchasing granites to lay the same on the floor of his house. And as such the opposite parties gave an estimate amounting to Rs.1,46,500/- as the cost of 1548sq.ft of granite tiles and 145.80sq.ft of granite slab and the complainant purchased the above said materials from the opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.1,46,500/- including the loading charges as per bill No.3672 dated 16..10..2002. At the time of purchasing the materials, the opposite parties assured that the granite tiles are of equal size and of good quality. But at the time when the complainant started laying the tiles he found that the granite tiles are of different sizes and due to this difference in size it is impossible to lay the tiles in an arranged order on the floor of the house of the complainant. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the above said matter and they agreed to replace the granite tiles having the same size against the present set of tiles. As agreed, the opposite parties supplied another set of granite tiles and it was found that this was also not of the same size. At once the complainant informed the opposite parties and requested them either to replace the same or repay the amount of Rs.1,46,500/- paid by the complainant. But they refused either to replace the same or return the amount. At last opposite parties agreed the complainant to pay the cutting charges and allied expenses. Having no other choice the complainant entrusted the said cutting work with 'Viswas Flooring Works' and they cut the tiles into same size and they charged the complainant an amount of Rs.17,000/- for their work and an amount of Rs.3,000/- was incurred as wastage and other expenses. The complainant several times demanded the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- but they did not settle the account and also the complainant alleges that the tiles supplied by the opposite parties are of low quality and they became faded. As per the complainant the act of the opposite parties amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice caused great inconvenience and loss. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for redressal of his grievances.<br /> 2. Opposite parties remain ex-parte.<br /> 3. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and has produced 5 documents.<br /> 4. Points to be ascertained are:<br /> (i)Whether there is negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?<br /> 5. Points No.(i) & (ii): In this case the complainant produced 5 documents to prove his case. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.P1 to P5.<br /> 6. The main allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties are that the opposite parties, supplied unequal sizes of tiles, for that the complainant had to entrust the 'Viswas Flooring Works' to cut the tiles into equal pieces. As per the complainant it was the duty of the opposite parties to supply the granite tiles in equal sizes. For that the complainant had to pay Rs.20,000/- as cutting charges. According to the complainant the opposite parties are liable to pay it.<br /> <br /> 7. In this case the opposite parties accepted notice but they did not turn up to contest this case. Hence we have decided the matter on the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainant. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Ext.P2 is the cash bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for Rs.1,46,500/- dated 16..10..2002. This document is the proof of the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties. Ext.P4 is the bill issued by the Viswas Flooring Works to the complainant for Rs.35,000/-. Out of this amount Rs.12,000/- is the cutting charge. From the evidence adduced by the complainant we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get the cutting charge from the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.<br /> <br /> In the result opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand only) to the complainant towards cutting charge of the granite and also opposite parties shall pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 9% interest per annum will be paid till the realization of the amount.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of September, 2008.<br /> . <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA,<br /> MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No: 168/2003 <br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> II.Complainants' documents:<br /> P1 : Original Estimate sheet<br /> P2 : Original cash bill No.3672 dated 16..10.2002<br /> P3 : Copy of Adv. Notice dated 26..02..2003 addressed to the opp. Party<br /> P4 : Original bill dated 20..11..2002 for Rs. 35,000/-<br /> P5 : Original gist coupon No.1127 with date of draw 27..10..2002<br /> <br /> III.Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties' documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />