04-01-2016 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.
1. Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose -vs- M. Aby & ors.
- Inspite of fixing this case for ex-parte hearing, nobody appears for the parties.
- The case of the complainant in short was as follows. On 30.9.2009, he purchased Century sunmica of different colours from the O.P-1-R-1(Dealer for short) for his flat. After the completion of work heavy cracks developed at different places in one particular colour namely frosted white product No. 111 T.S., spoiling the entire interior work covering an area about 300 Sq.ft. He informed the Dealer immediately, on which the representative of the O.P.2- R-2 (the Company for short) came and took photographs of the damaged sunmica and assured that he will submit his report for replacement of defective sunmica and payment of other expenses incurred by him, as it was a manufacturing defect in the sunmica. The complainant also sent his complaint by email to the Company but no action was taken. Then a legal notice was also sent claiming Rs. 75,500/- The Company denied its liability and simply offered replacement of six pieces of sunmica.
- The learned District Consumer Forum held that the sunmica in question was defective, due to which mental agony was caused to the complainant and ordered the O.Ps. to change the defective sunmica within 30 days of the order. No compensation or cost was awarded to the complainant.
- It is not known, whether the impugned order has been complied or not. If not, the order of learned District Consumer Forum directing the O.Ps. to change the defective sunmica will not be a proper remedy after about 5 years.
- The complainant claimed the following amounts;
i) Cost of defective laminate Rs.8,000/-
ii) Cost of fevicol Rs.1,200/-
iii) Cost of polishing material Rs.3,300/-
iv) Labour charges Rs.33,000/-
v) Polishing charges Rs. 5,000/-
vi) compensation Rs.25,000/-
Total -Rs.75,500/-
- It is an admitted position that the sunmica in question was defective. But the complainant did not prove expenses as claimed, against the cost of sunmica, fevicol and polishing material and the labour and polishing charges. However, admittedly he paid for the sunmica in question and he must have incurred costs/ labour charges in the work.
- In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the O.Ps- respondents are directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
- Accordingly, if the impugned order has not been complied, the O.Ps.- respondents are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- jointly and/or severely to the appellant- complainant within 60 days of this order failing which, the complainant will be entitled to get this order executed in accordance with law.
This appeal thus stands disposed off.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:- 04-01-2016
