DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                                …………………….

Presents:-

1. Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
2. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                   Dated, Bolangir the 28^th day of November 2017.

                   C.C.No.61 of 2015.

Ratan Kumar Moharana, aged about -55 years son of late S.K.Moharana,

Resident of At-Kanan Kutir, Near Circuit House, Salepali,Bolangir Town,

P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.

                                                           ..                      ..                   Complainant.

                     -Versus-

1.Mukesh Kumar singh, Prop. Of Simran Enterprises

   Son of late Daroga Singh, At-Near Rajendra Park,

   Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.

2.Oracle Granite Limited, Corporate Office, 286 Sabar Diary,

   TalodRoad, Himatnagar, Dist-Sabarkanth,

   Gujarat- 333001.

                                                             ..                  ..                     Opp.Parties.

Adv. for the complainant- None.

Adv. for the O.P.No.1     - Sri R.K.Mohakur & Associates.

Adv. for the O.P.No.2     - Sri K.L.Mishra.

                                                                        Date of filing of the case-07.08.2015

                                                                        Date of order.                 –28.11..2017

JUDGMENT.

Sri A.K.Purohit, President.

                The dealer O.P.No.1 appears in person on dated 23.10.2017 and submitted that ,he wants to settle the matter outside the court as the manufacturer willing to refund the price of the tiles. But no step has been taken by the O.Ps for settlement of the case till 06.11.2017. Hence since this is a case of the year 2015,  the case is disposed off on perusal of the materials available on record.

2.            The case of the complainant is that he had purchased 47 boxes of 2’ x 2’ vitrified tiles from the O.P.No.1 for a consideration of Rs 33,088/- on dated 20.03.2015. After fitting of the tiles on the floor the complainant found defects in the colour of the tiles, to which he complained before the O.Ps and in response the O.Ps assured to remove the defects. But the O.Ps neither removed the defects nor refunded the consideration amount Hence the complaint.

3.               Both the O.Ps have filed their version separately. Both the O.Ps have denied the complainant’s allegations and have taken the same plea  that, it is mentioned in each packet of the tiles that “all tiles must be inspected prior to installation. No claim shall be entertained after fixing the tiles”. Since the complainant has violated the said terms and had made complaint after fixing the tiles, the same cannot be entertained .The O.Ps have claimed for dismissal of the case.

4.              Perused the materials available on record. In support of his case the complainant has filed the retail invoice, Photograph of tiles and affidavit evidence of one Mason Nakula Banka. The O.Ps have not filed any counter affidavit.

Perused the retail invoice. It is a fact that, the complainant had purchased 47 boxes of 2’ x 2’ vertified tiles from the O.P.No.1. on payment of Rs 33,088/- on dt.10.03.2015. It is seen from the photograph of the tiles that, the colours of the tiles are not similar and same design. It is also evident from the affidavit evidence of Nakula Banka that, after flooring work of the tiles, it was seen mixed colour to which the O.P.No.1 admitted the defect in the tiles. All these evidence available on record shows that the quality of the tiles is not good. Defect as defined in the C.P.Act is, “defect means any fact, imperfection, or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods’.

5.            The manufacturer of the tiles is a ISO certified company and hence it is believed that the company is maintaining standard in manufacturing good quality tiles. But the evidences available on record show that, the tiles are of no good quality. Hence there is defect in the tiles purchased by the complainant as defined in the C.P.Act. It is also evident from the affidavit of Nakula Baka the mason, that the dealer offer to make replacement of the tiles which shows that, there must be manufacturing defect in the product. Hence the O.Ps are under obligation either to remove the defect or refund the price of the tiles. Although the O.Ps have not taken any step for removal of defect since last  two years, refund of price will meet the ends of justice. Hence ordered.

                                  ORDER.

                The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs 33,088/- along with Rs 5,000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9   % P.A. till payment.

               Accordingly the case is disposed off.

Order pronounced in open forum this the 28^th day of November 2017.

                   (S.Rath)                                    (A.K.Purohit)

                   MEMBER.                                PRESIDENT.