BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1311/2019
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Mr.M.Jayarama Raju,
S/o late M.Narara Raju,
Padmavathi Puram,
Near TTD Chairman House,
Andhra Pradesh-517 507. ……COMPLAINANT
Rep by Sri.Vaibhav Verma, Advocates.
M/s Jindal Marble and Stones,
No.24, Hosahalli,
Opposite Road of Vijaya Mansion Apartments,
Near Vijay Nagar Club,
Vijay Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 040.……OPPOSITE PARTY
Rep by Sri.N.Jagadish. Advocate.
*****
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 seeking for refund of Rs.1,25,440/-with 18% interest from 22.09.2017 with Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased black exterior tiles for a sum of Rs.1,25,440/- from opposite party on 22.09.2017 in order to install tiles at his residence in Tirupathi. The opposite party had issued invoice No.3636 dt.22.09.2017 in that respect. After 6 months of installation the tiles colour was faded. The tiles also started developing brown stains and at certain parts turned completely brown upon exposed to natural conditions such as sunlight and rain. At the time of purchasing the tiles the complainant specifically procured the tiles for installation at exterior compound wall situated at Tirupathi. The opposite party recommended these tiles are meant for exterior part of installation. Hence, the opposite party knowingfully well, in order to deceive the complainant supplied defective tiles. The complainant enquired the opposite party about supply of defective colour shaded tiles. The opposite party has failed to give satisfactory answers. Hence, this complaint for refund of purchase amount with interest.
3. Per contra, the opposite party admitted the purchase of tiles from complainant. The opposite party had taken specific contention that the complainant had purchased designer tiles SB natural (5½ X 22) sand stone of 1066 pieces of Beige colour for the sum of Rs.1,25,440/-. The complainant himself chose tiles for his own choice. The complainant falsely alleged that the opposite party had supplied defective tiles instead of black tiles. The complainant had filed this false complaint in order to have a wrongful gain with reckless allegations. Hence, it is sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant examined himself by filing affidavit with EX.P1 to P6 documents. The opposite party has also been examined by filing his affidavit.
5. Both the parties have not filed written arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant.
7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party supplied defective tiles and it amounts to deficiency of service ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint ?
iii) What order ?
8. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In negative
Point No.2 : In negative
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:-It is admitted fact that on 22.09.2017 the complainant had purchased designer tiles bearing HNS code:6810 SB natural 5½ X 22 size 1666 units comprising of 1400 square feet for Rs,1,25,440/- from the opposite party under invoice No.3636. The specific allegation of the complainant is that though he has chosen natural black tiles., after six months of installation, the tiles colour became fade and reflected brown colour stains in specific parts. The tiles colour were changed from the natural black to brown colour due to wear and tear condition. At the time of purchasing the complainant specifically asked opposite party to provide tiles for exterior installation. Even the opposite party also assured and recommended to install tiles which are procured by the complainant for installation at compound wall. The opposite party very well known about the defects of the tiles which were colour faded after exposing to light and rain. On the other hand, the opposite party has stated that whatever the tiles chosen by the complainant same was supplied under the invoice. As per EX.P1 invoice bearing No.3636 dt.22.09.2017 discloses the tiles supplied are Designer tiles having HNS Code:6810 SB natural. As per opposite party version, he has supplied the tiles having Beige colour, and there is no deficiency of service or defective tiles supplied by him. The complainant also alleged that his complaint only with regard to fading of tiles from black colour to brown colour. Beige colour is appears mud or brownish colour. The complainant not filed any documents to show that he has purchased black coloured tiles except the photo EX.P2 & P4. The opposite party also not produced any document to shown that he had supplied beige colour tiles. In the invoice in EX.P1 it is mentioned “SB natural” tiles.
10. According to the opposite party, he has supplied the tiles shown in EX.P1. The purchase was on 22.09.2017 the notice as per EX.P5 was on 16.01.2018. The assertion of the complainant that the supply of tiles was diametrically opposite from the tiles identified by him and it was defective in quality. Hence, burden is heavily casted on the complainant to prove the same. In that context to substantiate the same an opinion from an expert is required. That is not done. If the tiles supplied were different one, the complainant should have return it, instead he had fixed the tiles on the earth. Further to prove the defect an expert opinion is required. The judgment relied rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7223/2016 on 02.08.2016, in between Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and others V/s H and R.Johnson (India) Limited and others is not applicable for the reason in the said case an architect had examined and assessed damage of defective tiles. Hence, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service and defective tiles been supplied. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in negative.
11. POINT NO.2:- In view of the discussions made above and findings on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought. Accordingly, we answer this point in negative.
12. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;
-
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 15th day of October, 2022)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
MEMBER MEMBERPRESIDENT
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainantss side:
Sri.M.Jayarama Raju, the complainant has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainants side:
- The invoice bearing No.3636 dt.22.09.2017 issued by the opposite party.
- The sheet containing the photographs of the tiles which identified for being purchased.
- The sheet containing 2 photographs of the tiles which were actually supplied.
- Copy of the legal notice dt.16.01.2018 got issued by the complainant to the opposite party through his counsel.
- Reply to the above said notice dt.08.02.2018 sent by the counsel for the opposite party to the complainant’s counsel.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
-
