KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 269/05

JUDGMENT DATED: 3.3.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

Antony Thomas,,                                         : APPELLANT

Kochupoovathumkal,

Alias Kochupoovathummoottil House,

Chettimattom, Pala, Lalam Village,

Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District.

(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)

        vs.

P.V.George,                                                : RESPONDENT

Bright Line Flooring Works,

Pulickal,

Anthinadu.P.O.,

PIN – 686 651.

(By Adv.A.Abdul Kharim)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

            The appellant is the opposite party in  OP.91/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellant is under orders to rectify the defects in the flooring done by the appellant and also to pay a cost of Rs.1500/-.

          2. The case of the complainant is that opposite party was entrusted with the work of laying the granite slabs in the rooms and glazed tiles in the bathrooms.  According to him he had paid a sum of Rs.9500/- altogether.  It is alleged that one of the granite slabs laid is in a raised position thereby damaging the appearance of the floor.  Nothing could be done with respect to the above tile of the size were  8 x 4 feet.  The loss in this regard is mentioned  as Rs.4704/- towards the value of one slab and its laying charge.  The glazed tiles laid in the bath room suffers from poor workmanship and they are in different  levels  from the lintel to top.  He has estimated the loss  as Rs.5300/-. He has sought for a compensation of Rs.10000/-.  Later  the claim was amended as Rs.35000/-.

3. According to the opposite party the defects alleged are due to the defects of the tiles.  According to him the total labour charge agreed is RS.33400/- and Rs.7000/- alone  has been paid.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to  A3 and Ext.C1.

5. The commissioner has noted that there is level difference with respect to a particular slab. He could not ascertain whether it was natural  bent of the slab or poor workmanship. The level difference could have been cleared by   giving some downword thrust to the  slab at the time of the laying.  He has also noted defects in laying glazed tiles in the bath room.  It is noted that the green beeding is done in white colour.  It is also pointed out  that the thickness of the tile is   clearly projected in the corners of wall.  It can be rectified by chipping the edge  of each tile.  It is also noted that there are other defects in the laying of the glazed tiles.  No objection has been filed on the report of the commissioner.  The direction  of the Forum is that the opposite party is to rectify the defects. It is submitted that no rectification done so far.  In the circumstances  and in view of the original claim of the complainant we find that a sum of Rs.8000/- will be adequate compensation to the complainant. 

6. The opposite party/respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and also to pay cost of Rs.1500/-.  The appeal is allowed in part as above.

Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

ps