DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17 day of November 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
Date of filing : 17/02/2014
CC No.23/2014
Jaheef.K.P.
S/o.K.M.Pareedu Kutty Haji,
Puncakkode Kalam,
Thenkara Post, Mannarkkad Taluk,
Palakkad – 678 582 - Complainant
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
1.Babu,
Manager,
Premier Pavers,
Nottamala, Mannarkkad Post,
Palakkad Dist.
2.Saidalikutty,
Manager,
Premier Pavers,
Nottamala, Mannarkkad Post,
Palakkad Dist.
3.Joseph,
Manager,
Premier Pavers,
Nottamala, Mannarkkad Post,
Palakkad Dist. - Opposite parties
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H PRESIDENT
The complainant approached the opposite parties for paving interlock tiles to his house compound front yard and side yard. The opposite parties promised the complainant to pave good quality of such tiles including labour and material charges at the rate of Rs.52/- per sq.ft. The opposite parties promised the complainant that the tiles manufactured by them are of good quality and will last for more that 15 years without any breakage and the colour will not fade for a minimum period of 5 years. By believing the words and promise of the opposite parties, the complainant entered into an oral contract with the opposite parties and thereby entrusted the work of paving the interlock tiles to the front yard and side yard of the house compound of the complainant for the said sum of Rs.52/- sq.ft. On 25/10/2012, 26/10/2012,and 27/10/2012 the opposite parties paved the interlock tiles in the house yard of the complainant and on 27/10/2012 a total sum of Rs.1,89,000/- is paid by the complainant to the opposite parties towards the full and final settlement for the agreed work.
Thereafter it was found that the interlock tiles paved by the opposite parties are damaged due to loss of colour as well as total breakup. When the Maruti car of the complainant or the car of his brother is moved over the paved tiles, the tiles breakup and it is breaking even now on moving the car. The opposite parties assured at the time of paving the tiles that it will not get damaged even on carrying 3 tones over it.
However within three days of paving the tiles, the same lost its colour and started breaking and the paved tiles go down to earth. The said things happened due to the manufacturing defect of the tiles as well as due to improper paving of the tiles by using substandard raw materials as well as not using proper and adequate raw materials.
The said defects were brought to the notice of the opposite parties and they replaced a few tiles from the lot of broken tiles on frequent complaint by the complainant. Within seven days of the paving tiles, again the paved tiles stared breaking and the matter was again and again reported to the opposite party but they are unwilling to clear the defects so far.
Due to the deficiency of service, the complainant met heavy loss to the tune of Rs.1,89,000/- in cash and apart from that he suffered mental and physical agony to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant is not in a position to use his front yard and side yard of his house due to the defective tiles paved by the opposite parties.
Hence complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,89,000/- towards cost of the tiles alongwith Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered.
All Opposite parties set exparte. The evidence adduced by the parties consist of the Chief affidavit. Advocate Commissioner appointed filed report and is marked as Ext.C1.
Heard complainant. The specific case of the complainant is that the pavement tiles purchased from the opposite parties and also laid by them is a defective one. Within 3 days of purchase itself the colour faded and also majority of the tiles were broken. Advocate Commissioner appointed has noted the defects as follows:
- Tiles are not properly paved and there is a gap of ¼ inch in between the tiles. It was not properly inter locked.
- Most of the tiles are shaking even on walking over it by a man. The reason being non use of required quantity of MSand and baby metal beneath the tiles.
- Few tiles which are paved infront of the gate is seen broken.
- On comparison with a fresh piece of tile with the already laid, the colour of the laid tile is fully faded.
On going through the evidence on record we find that other than the chief affidavit, complainant has not adduced any evidence regarding the purchase of tiles from opposite parties, regarding the entrustment of work with the opposite parties and for the payment of Rs.1,89,000/- to opposite parties. Since, the opposite parties remained exparte, there is no evidence contrary to the one adduced by the complainant. In Ext.C1, Commissioner report, the commissioner has noted that the colour of almost tiles faded and also noticed breakage in some tiles. No. of tiles broken is not specifically mentioned by the commissioner. The evidence on record shows that the tiles purchased by the complainant is a defective one.
In view of the above discussion we partly allow the complaint and order the following:
Opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally directed to replace the broken tiles with new one and pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. If the opposite parties failed to replace the broken tiles, complainant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation. Order to be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of November 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
Ext.C1 – Adv.Deepti.S.Nair
Cost allowed
Rs.3000/- allowed as cost
