KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 667/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 27-12-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :PRESIDENT

M/s Coral Marketing,

Melethil Complex, Adoor,

Thatta Road, Adoor.P.O,

Pathanamthitta. R/by its

Managing Partner,                                              : APPELLANT

Smt.Archana Varghese,

W/o Varghese M George,

Melethil House, Adoor.P.O,

Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv.RSri.Narayan.R)

          Vs.

1.      P.M. Sajan,

Cozy Bhavan, Perumbailkadu.P.O,

Kottayam.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.      Manju Marbles,

Kodymatha, Kottayam.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

Appellants are the 1^st opposite party in CC.148/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8509/- with compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.

2.  The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant purchased 29 sq.mts of floor tiles from the opposite party/appellant for a sum of Rs.9610/-.  The complainant purchased red tiles. At the time of opening the packets it was found that there were slight colour fading and white precipitate like stains on them.  The matter was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party/sub dealer.  The complainant was told the white patches would disappear when the tiles are polished.  The tiles were laid by spending a sum of Rs.20/- per sq.ft. and a sum of Rs.6240/- was spend for polishing.  The complainant has sought for refund of the purchase money and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost.

3. The opposite parties have contended that the manufacturers have used the best quality of Birla white cement mixing with the pigment which is the best available.  It is also contended that there was direction on the packets that in case of manufacturing defects the tiles should be sorted out before laying and that no claim will be entertained once the tiles are laid.  It is also contended that the tiles were re-polished at the cost of the opposite party.

4. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides and Exts.A1, Exts.B1 and B2 and C1.

5. The Commissioner has reported that almost all the tiles contained white patches.  It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that improper use of white cement will result in patches. It is possible on account of chemical reaction.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence in support of the above contention.  It is also contended that the commission report is filed by an Advocate and not by an expert.  We find that the report as to the white patches existing no expertise is required.  The counsel has also stressed as to the notice printed over the packets.  A sample of the same has produced before as Ext.B1.  We find no reason to disbelieve the complainant that he was advised that on polishing the patches would disappear.  Further the opposite parties have also stated that they themselves have polished at there own cost.  So also, we find that the amount ordered to be paid is only meager.   In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed in-limine.

Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

VL.