BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 435/2003 Filed on 10.11.2003 Dated : 30.12.2009 Complainants: Gopalan Nair, “Ambaadi”, N 4, Jawahar Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram presently in 1337 E, Voltaire Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, U.S.A represented by the Power of Attorney Holder B.V. Nandakumar, residing at “Gopika”, T.C 16/321(2), Easwaravilasam Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Geetha R. Nair, “Sudarshanam”Shivamangalam Lane, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram presently in 1337 E, Voltaire Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, U.S.A represented by the Power of Attorney Holder B.V. Nandakumar, residing at “Gopika”, T.C 16/321(2), Easwaravilasam Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. C. S. Sukumaran Nair) Opposite parties:
M/s Chaudari Granite Traders, 34, 1397 A, By pass Road, Near Anjumana Road, Edappally, Cochin – 682 024. Rajendra Singh Chaudari, M/s Chaudari Granite Traders, 34, 1397 A, By pass Road, Near Anjumana Road, Edappally, Cochin – 682 024.
(By adv. S. Jamal) This O.P having been heard on 30.11.2009, the Forum on 30.12.2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The opposite parties offered to supply the marble tiles and granite tiles required for the flooring of the building of the complainants 1 and 2 showing a sample of the marble tiles and granite tiles of imperial white granite and further promised that the marbles and granite supplied by the opposite parties would certainly have the quality and standard of the sample and that the granite supplied would certainly be imperial white. They also promised to supply the granite at the rate of Rs. 75/- per Sq. feet + 13.81% tax. The quantity of granite required by the complainant was 1500 Sq. feet of imperial white. The opposite parties agreed to supply 1500 Sq. feet of imperial white granite at the rate of Rs. 75/- per Sq. feet plus tax. On 1st December 2001, the complainant placed the order for supply of granite and marble and paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance. The opposite parties delivered the marbles and granite on 26th January 2002 at the site of the complainant in Thiruvananthapuram. The delivery was effected by the opposite parties at Thiruvananthapuram in packets wrapped and covered. So at the time of delivery the complainants did not verify or examine tiles piece by piece by removing the covers/wrappers. The complainants paid Rs. 1,20,372/- as demanded by the opposite parties towards the price of granite as agreed to. The complainants started laying the granite tiles on the floor of the building. During the course of laying in March 2002, red stains were found on most of the granite tiles. Such red stains were not found in the sample of the imperial white granite shown to the complainants when the deal was fixed. Immediately on noticing the red stains on the granite tiles, the 2nd opposite party was informed about the red stains on the granite tiles supplied by them who suggested that the stains would disappear soon. However the stain did not disappear as suggested by the 2nd opposite party. Even after repeated requests no positive action was taken by the opposite parties and hence this complaint has been necessitated.
The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. That the granites were supplied to the full satisfaction of the complainants and they had taken delivery of the granite pieces after having satisfied with each and every pieces. The complaints arose after months after the completion of flooring. Even if certain stains occur here and there it is not due to bad quality but due to the fact that since granite is a natural product it becomes subjected to certain chemical action as and when it is exposed to sun, water etc. Granites contain certain stain or iron and when the iron comes in contact with hydrogen content in water, some chemical reaction occur and because of this sometimes the granites suffer from stains. Besides this, the use of white cement etc. leads to chemical reaction. So, the stains if any, are due to the chemical reaction for which the opposite party is nowhere responsible. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
The complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder, PW1, has filed affidavit, marked Exts. P1 to P8 but has not been cross examined by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had no evidence. An expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum and the report filed by him has been marked as Ext. C1. From the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration. Whether the opposite parties have supplied poor quality granites to the complainants? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) to (iii):- The allegation of the complainant is that the granites supplied by the opposite parties developed red stains during the course of laying and though the opposite parties were informed of the same no action has been taken by them. The opposite parties contend that the stains if any are due to the chemical reaction, that the granites contain certain stain of iron and when the iron comes in contact with hydrogen content in water some form of chemical reaction occur and stains are formed. An expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum. As per his report Ext. C1, we find that the expert commissioner has reported what he has not been asked to and has opined what he is not authorized to. Expert was appointed to ascertain the defects alleged in the complaint, but as per the commissioner’s report he has given his opinion as to how to pass orders in this case, which the commissioner has no authority and by which the commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction. The commissioner has not ascertained the damages suffered in the granite slabs. The commissioner’s conclusion on the same that both complainant and opposite parties cannot escape their responsibility in perpetrating the present condition of the granite flooring is not what the Forum require from the expert commissioner and the commissioner has not been asked his personal opinion on the merits of the case. He being a technical expert, he has been asked to apply his technical know-how on the defects in the granite if any. The photographs on record show that the granite tiles have red stains here and there. There is no dispute that the tiles were delivered on 26.01.2002. According to PW1 the stains were found during the course of laying in March 2002. Ext. P2 reveals that the stains on the granite tiles were brought to the knowledge of opposite parties as on 29.07.2002 i.e, after 2 months of laying the same. As per Ext. P3 reply dated 14.08.2002 sent by opposite parties for the above Ext. P2, the opposite parties have stated that it is not entirely unusual for granites to contain some colours and design variation, that this is because granites are natural products special variety of rock that the stains complained of therefore could be of that nature.
As per Ext. C1 the commissioner has assessed the area of such tiles where red stains are developed as about 450 sq. feet. The cost of removing damaged pieces of granite tiles has been assessed as Rs. 3,600/-. As per Ext. C1, “certain granite slabs/tiles containing small quantity of iron oxide (ferrous material), when laid and this in contact with the hydrogen content or water or white cement etc. develops red stains or discolouration due to slow chemical reaction, which had happened in this case. Granite stones are classified into different quality based on these properties according to which its market price varies from Rs. 60 sq. feet to Rs. 180 sq. feet. In this case the complainant had gone in for a cheaper variety of granite as the cost is only Rs. 75/- sq. feet and such type of defects are likely to develop in this type of cheaper variety of granite”. Further more as per Ext. C1 (i) Cost of dismantling granite tiles already laid -1350 sq. feet x Rs. 8 per sq. feet : Rs. 10,800/-
(ii) Cost of damaged tiles 450x75 sq. feet : Rs. 33,750/- (iii) Cost of relaying the tiles 1350xRs. 12 sq. feet : Rs. 16,200/- --------------------- TOTAL : Rs. 60,750/- ============= At this juncture the point to be highlighted is that the stains were found immediately after laying. When a consumer buys a product like granite tiles, a minimum guarantee is expected from the same. Here the said defect has arisen within a very short span of purchase and the complainant has been deprived of the satisfaction of using new granite tiles.
From the above discussions and records on evidence, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 60,750/- along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of the order till realisation.
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.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of December 2009.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
O.P. No. 435/2003 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS : PW1 - Nandakumar II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Power of attorney submitted by complainant. P1(a) - Power of attorney submitted by complainant’s wife. P2 - Photocopy of registered letter addressed to opposite party dated 29.07.2002 P3 - Photocopy of letter dated 14.08.2002 addressed to complainant P4 - Photographs produced by complainant. P5 - Photographs submitted by complainant. P6 - Negative of photographs submitted by complainant. P7 - Bill dated 13.11.2003 addressed to Power of attorney holder. P8 - Photocopy of letter dated 11.09.2002 issued by complainant. III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS : NIL V COURT EXHIBIT C1 - Commission Report PRESIDENT
|
