DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 52 OF 2015
Deepak Patel @ Dipak Patel ( 42 Yrs.)
S/O: Sudhansu Patel,
Occu: Advocacy ,R/O: Ekatali,
PS/Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha,……………………………..……..………. Complainant.
Versus
Pooja Marbals,
At-Beheramal Kishan Chhak,
PO: Industrial Estate,
PS/Dist: Jharsuguda….……………………………….........../................ Opp. Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Self.
For the Opp. Party Shri H.S. Agrawal, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 22.03.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Smt. A. Nanda, Sr.Member.
Smt A.Nanda Sr. Member: - The brief facts of the consumer complaint are that, the complainant namely Deepak Kumar Patel as a practicing advocate of the District Bar Association, Jharsuguda has purchased 55 piece equal to 983. 198 sq. ft. white marble slab on payment of Rs.50,000/- vide MR. No.1 dtd. 09.07.2015 and Rs.31,500/- vide MR No.4 dtd. 11.09.2015 respectively from the O.P. As per the averment of the complainant at the time of purchase of the said marble the O.P convinced and assured the complainant to supply good quality of marble to him, accordingly the complainant agreed with the assurance of O.P and purchase the said marble slabs. The complainant fitted the said marble in his new building at village Ekatali for which he had spent about Rs.20,647/- only towards fitting and labour charges. The complainant also purchase some other marble from different shops which were also fitted by same marble Mistry. It is alleged by the complainant after one month of the fitting of the said marble which were supplied by the O.P turned crack. Thereafter the complainant complain about the matter to the OP but the O.P reluctant to do any thing in that respect. It is the say of the complainant that the OP have cheated the complainant by supplying substandard quality of marble which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P hence this case with a prayer to the forum for a direction to the O.P for payment of Rs.1,01,500/- and Rs.55,000/- for mental agony , harassment including cost of the case along with documents .
Being noticed through this Forum, the O.P. appeared before this forum through his counsel Sri H.S Agrawal and file written version and contest the case.
We have perused the complaint petition written version evidence i.e. document produce by the parties including affidavit evidence. We have also heard argument from both counsels argued o behalf of the parties. It is not disputed by the O.P that the complainant has purchased 55 piece equal to 983.198 Sq.ft. white marble slab amounting to Rs. 81,605/- only from the O.P. It is also not disputed during the time of purchase of the said marble, the O.P convinced the complainant and assured to supply good quality marbles to the complainant and agreed with the assurance and purchased the same. The only disputed facts of the case is that the white marble which are fitted in the house of complainant found crack after one month of the fitting. And the O.P have denied to same as there is no any identification marks on it. It is submitted by the O.P.’s the marbles which are fitted in the house of the complainant were purchased from some others and it can be said that marbles purchase from this O.P are poor quality and the marbles purchases from others are good quality for that the counsel for the O.P vehemently argued this marble does not belongs to them and they have not supply this marble. He further cited a decision M/s Eidparry ( India) Vrs. Baby Benzamine Thushara 856 National Consumer Ruling on consumer (NC), the facts of which are all to gather different and the same are not applicable to this state. The plea of laboratory test has not taken in the written version by the O.P. The plea which were not taken in the written version will not be considered during the course of hearing. On the other hand one marble Mistry namely Laxmidhar Murmu has examine on behalf of complainant and cross examine by the O.P categorically stated that from his 10 years of experience at marble Mistry marbles are not crack due to fitting. When the complainant complain about the matter before the O.P, the O.P refused to do any thing in that respect.
Now a days in the advertising and market oriented scenario it is observed that few boisterous businessman have brutally blurred ethical entity of customer and shopkeeper relationship. They primarily allured the customers with honey coated hauls and after the fiscal transaction not at all looked into the arising inconvenient of the customer by way of their defective sell. The very purpose of C.P act is to nip such type of consumer thrashing attitude amongst the uncivil merchants and to resume the faith of the innocent buyers upon the consumer protecting statute.
During the course of hearing putting reliance on the documents put forth on behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the judgment reported in CLT volume-60( 2013 ) (4) the hon’ble Punjab state consumer dispute redressal Commission, Chandigarh held that consumer complaint can be filed whether there is any guarantee –warranty or not –if goods found defective. Consumer Protection Act,1986 Section-2 (1) (g) –warranty –guarantee –substandard marble –on the bill terms mentioned as no guarantee, no exchange, no returned- held - even if there was no guarantee, no warranty, no exchange or no return, then also the O.P was not authorized to sell the defective materials and supply any goods which are defective is amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of aforesaid discussion, we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint of the complainant, hence the order as follows;
ORDER
The O.P is directed to return 60% of purchasing amount of marbles i.e 81.605/- @ 60%i.e= Rs.48,963/- ( Rupees forty eight thousand nine hundred sixty three) only to the complainant. Further the O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) only towards compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation cost within in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 22nd day of March 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree.
S.L.Behera, President A.Nanda, Sr.Member
Dictated and corrected by me.
A.Nanda, Sr.Member
