Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1682/2015

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jindal Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Sahni

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                  

                                                Complaint No.  1682

                                                Instituted on:    15.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       26.07.2016

 

Sunil Kumar son of Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of Backside N K Mobile Shop, Barnala Road, Near Police Lines, Sangrur.

                                                                                                …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.     M/s. Jindal Traders, D-15, Focal Point, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.     Orient Bell Limited, Iris House, 16, Business Centre, Nagal Raya, New Delhi through its authorised signatory.

                                                                                               ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1            :       Shri P.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Manpreet Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Sunil Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of OP number 1 by purchasing 61 boxes of AMO Crema premium floor tiles vide bill number 155 dated 4.10.2014 for Rs.35,204/- for 55 boxes and payment of 6 boxes was made vide bill number 209 dated 5.12.2014 for Rs.3360/- and by this way the complainant spent an amount of Rs.38,564/-.  It is further averred that after the purchase of the said tiles, the same were checked and sorted by the contractor. The tiles from 14 boxes were laid down in the bed room and gallery attached with in and after 2/3 days, when all the tiles were laid and washed, it was found that there was shade variation, as such, the complainant returned the remaining 47 boxes to the OP number 1 and also brought the problem to the knowledge of Mr. Rakesh, Senior Sales Executive, who visited the spot on 17.10.2014 and admitted the shade variation. It is further averred that the returned 47 boxes were replaced with another shade namely ‘Andes crema’ and laid down the same and after washing it was found that the tiles again supplied were also having colour variation.  As such, the complainant sent emails on 30.10.2014 and 31.10.2014 to the OPs, but no reply was received. Thereafter the complainant again approached the Ops, but no fruitful result was found. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the defective tiles with new one or to refund to the complainant the price of the tiles i.e. Rs.38,564/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant approached it and purchased the tiles vide bills number 155 and 209.  It is further stated that the complainant was clearly informed that the tiles are manufactured by using ‘roto printing technology’ and as per the industry trading practice there shall be slightly shade and colour variation in the said tiles.  Moreover, the complainant again purchased six boxes of the same tiles on 5.12.2014 after satisfying the quality of the tiles even after two months of purchase of the earlier tiles i.e. 4.10.2014.  It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the tiles. It is further stated that the OP number 1 replaced even 47 boxes of tiles just due to goodwill gesture. Any defect in the said tiles has been clearly denied and any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 is also denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, the sale and purchase of the tiles by the complainant from OP number 1 has been admitted. It is further stated that as per information available to OP, the complainant was duly explained by OP number 1 regarding the nature of tiles and further the complainant was also clearly informed that the tiles are manufactured by using ‘roto printing technology’ and as per the industry trading practice, there shall be slight shade and colour variation in the said tiles.  The other contents of the reply are on the lines of the reply filed by OP number 1.  However, any deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect in the tiles has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of emails, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 copies of bills, Ex.C-10 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 postal receipts, Ex.C-13 copy of reply dated 28.2.2015, Ex.C-14 affidavit, Ex.C-15 copy of expert report dated 15.9.2015, Ex.C-16 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-17 translate copy of conversation, Ex.C-18 memory card and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 authority letter and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted case of all the parties that the complainant had purchased the 61 boxes of floor tiles from OP number 1 which have been manufactured by Op number 2 vide bills dated 4.10.2014 and 5.12.2014, copies of which are on record as Ex. C-8 and Ex.C-9.  In the present case, the main grievance of the complainant is that the tiles supplied by the OPs are having manufacturing defects as there is shade variation therein and the same was found when the tiles were washed after laying down on the floor.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the tiles supplied by the OP number 1 were having shade variation, as such the OP number 1 even replaced 47 boxes of the tiles of AMO Crema  with Andes Crema quality tiles.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that when 47 boxes of tiles of Andes Crema were laid down and washed after fixing the same, it was found that the tiles were having shade variation.    As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the tiles were having manufacturing defect and has sought either refund of the amount of tiles or in the alternative replacement of the tiles.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that at the time of the purchase of the tiles, the complainant was clearly and duly informed regarding variation in shade and colour of tiles, as the tiles are being manufactured by using ‘Roto Printing Technology’ and as per the industry trading practice, there shall be slight shade and colour variation in the said tiles. 

 

8.             We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that though the complainant has produced various copies of emails which are on record as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7, but the complainant has not produced on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record that there was very colour variation in the tiles, more so when, the OPs are itself admitting that there can be some shade variation.  The complainant has not denied the version of the OPs that the OP number 1 intimated the complainant that there can be some shade variation in the tiles.  Further the complainant has not produced any photographs of the tiles or any expert report of the engineer to establish that the tiles supplied by the OPs were having shade variation.   The alleged expert report Ex.C-15 dated 15.9.2015 issued by one Gurmail Singh contractor says that the tiles were having manufacturing defect and the condition of the said tiles will more deteriorate in future.  But, on bare perusal of the expert report Ex.C-15, we find that Gurmail Singh is only a contractor, who is doing the work of installation of all kind of walls for the last 15 years.  There is nothing mentioned in the report whether Gurmail Singh is any expert engineer in the field, more so when Shri Gurmail Singh is only a contractor (mason/labourer) for fitting the tiles.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this report Ex.C-15 produced by the complainant on record is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.  Further the conversation of the complainant  and dealer of OP number 1 Ex.C-17 produced by the complainant is at all not helpful to the case of the complainant that it has no authenticity, as it has not been signed by any one and even the complainant has not signed the same. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not sign the alleged conversation Ex.C-17.   In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint. 

 

9.             The complainant has also cited Mrs. Shakuntala Dev Sain and others versus Haryana Sanitation and others 2010(2) CPR 32 in support of his contention.  But, we find that the situation in the present case is other than that, as in the present case, it is the specific case of the OPs number 1 and 2 that the complainant was duly explained by the OP number 1 that the tiles are manufactured by using ‘Roto Printing Technology” and as per the industry trading practice, there shall be slightly shade and colour variation in the said tiles.  As such, we find that the law cited by the complainant is not helpful to the case of the complainant, more so when the complainant has not denied this allegation of the OPs number 1 and 2 by filing rejoinder or in the affidavit Ex.C-16.

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 26, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member