BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

Complaint no.210/2018.

Date of instt.: 08.08.2018. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 26.03.2019.

Darshan Singh son of Jagroop Singh aged 60 years resident of village Mithri Tehsil Kalanwali District Sirsa.

                                                                   ……….Complainant.  

                                                Versus

M/s. Mahaveer Marbles, Sirsa-Dabwali Road, Odhan District Sirsa GSTIN No.06B1PPR9694R1Z0, State Code-06 Mobile No. 97294/41151/ 97297-21151/ 97274-41151.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.   

Before:         SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………… PRESIDENT                            

                     SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER                      

                      MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER

 Present:           Complainant in person.

Sh.R.K.Garg, Advocate for the opposite party.

ORDER

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased marble from the Op in between April, 2018 to June, 2018 for a sum of Rs.2,38,023/- and made the payment thereof, in cash. The OP had issued bill No.30 dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.32,000/-, bill No.31 dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.20,000/-, bill No.33 dated 28.05.2018 for Rs.12,000/- and two Kacche bills dated 13.04.2018 for Rs.71,619/- dated 18.04.2018 and bill dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.1,02,404/-. The complainant asked the Op to issue Pucca bill but it did not pay any heed.  At the time of purchase of marble, the OP had assured that the marble is of good quality. In the month of April/May, 2018 the complainant got installed the marble in one room, two stores and lobby of ground floor and on the two sporting pillars of first floor through an experienced meson Rek Singh. Unfortunately, there developed big cracks in the marble, in the month of July, 2018, therefore, the complainant visited Op  and requested to make the loss good, being suffered by him, on account of selling of inferior quality of marbles by the Op. On this, the Op had only assured to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The OP has sold inferior quality of marble to the complainant; therefore, he has suffered financial loss besides mental agony and harassment. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence,this complaint.

2.                          On notice, Op appeared and filed its reply wherein   it has been submitted that the complainant had purchased marble for a sum of Rs.64,000/- vide bill Nos. 30, 31 and 33. There was no guarantee/warrantee on the marble and this fact had been written on the bills. In fact, the marble was of good quality but the complainant in order to avoid the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- has filed the present false complaint. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          Thereafter both the parties led their respective evidence. The complainant, in support of his case, has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documentss Ex.C1 to C10.  On the other hand, the Op has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R1.     

5.                          It is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant has purchased marble from the Ops on payment of consideration. As per allegations of the complainan, he has purchased marble to the tune of Rs.2,38,023/- by making the payment on different occasions and due to which bill No.30 dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.32,000/-, bill No.31 dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.20,000/-, bill No.33 dated 28.05.2018 for Rs.12,000/- and two Kacche bills dated 13.04.2018 for Rs.71,619/- dated 18.04.2018 and bill dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.1,02,404/-  were issued. However, the bill for remaining amount was not issued by the OP and he had been avoiding to issue the bill on one or the other pretext.  The marble was laid down on the floor and other parts of the building such as one room, two stores, lobby and on two sporting pillars of first floor by an expert meson, but however, after few days of the installation of the marble, he found some defects in the same and, therefore, he approached the Op for the replacement of the marble or in the alternate to make refund of the amount.

6.                          On the other hand, there is specific plea of the OP that he had sold the marble only for Rs.64,000/- and out of which Rs.40,000/- was paid by the complainant and remaining amount of Rs.24,000/- was due against the complainant and in order to grab that amount he has filed the present complaint in order to pressurize the OP not to claim the balance amount of Rs.24,000/-.

7.                          The complainant in order to prove his case has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated the contents made in the complaint and prayed that the contents of the complaint may be read as a part of this affidavit and he has also tendered photographs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, bill of Marble Ex.C6 to Ex.C8  and Kacche bills Ex.C9 and Ex.C10.

8.                          On the other hand, the OP has furnished the affidavit of Rupa Ram, who is the salesman of the Ops, Ex.R1 in which he has deposed that the complainant has purchased marble of Rs.64,000/- and out of which he has paid Rs.40,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.24,000/- is to be paid by him.

9.                          During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OP has not denied the sale of marble by the Op to the complainant rather the Op has contended that the marble was of good quality and it was categorically mentioned on the bill that there is no guarantee or warranty of the marble.

10.              The perusal of the bills reveals that these were issued on 18.04.2018 and 28.05.2018 and some of the Kacche bills dated 18.04.2018 and 13.04.2018 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 08.08.2018 within a short span of less than 4 months which clearly indicates that the sold marble of the Op was found defective in a short period.  Despite repeated requests of the complainant the OP did not bother to visit and inspect the floor of the house of the complainant which reflects the act and conduct of the OP as an unfair trade practice committed by OP.  So, it appears that the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

11.                        In view of above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to carry out the necessary repairs in the flooring of the marble, so installed by the complainant at his house, without any costs, and if, it is found by the meson of the OP himself that some of the pieces of the marble are defective, in that eventuality, the Op is directed to replace those pieces of the marble with new one of the same make and design, without any costs. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receiving of the copy of this order. Copy be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.                              President,                                                                                 Dated:26.03.2019.                            

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes                                                      

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                    Member                         Member                                                    

                DCDRF, Sirsa               DCDRF, Sirsa