By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> In the averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant has started construction a new house in his property situated in Survey No.89/12,91/20 of Puthur village for his residential purpose. While the construction was in progress the 2nd opp.party approached the complainant and offered to supply good quality marble and comparatively reduced prize. Believing his words the complainant agrees to purchase marble through the 2nd opp.party from the first opp.party. Thereafter Morwad white marble slab were agreed to be supplied the cost of Rs.58/- per square feet and the complainant purchase Rs.2,850/- square feet of Morward white marble for a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/-. But the first opp.party issue only a bill for Rs.<br /> 97,299/- stating that he has some problem with regard to the tax. Thereafter the laying of the marble were started in march 2005 after laying the marble grinding work was commenced that time it was noticed that the marble already laid to damages and a number of slabs were broken. When the complaint enquired about it the opp.party said that there is nothing to wrong the complainant paid Rs. 33,500/- to the 2nd opp.party towards laying charges. Thereafter for about 2 months the 2nd opp.party did not turn up for grinding work. Thereafter the complainant approached the first opp.party and told about the defects but the 2nd opp.party did not take any action to replace the broken marbles slabs or cure defects. Since the opp.party 1 and 2 did not turn up to complete the work the complainant engaged one Krishna Kumar to Mulankadakom, Kollam who was the marble work to complete the work when the defects were notice this Krishna kumar told the complainant that the marble supplied were inferior quality and that is a reason for pretty the same and sustaining damages. Now the complainant satisfied that the 1 and 2 deliberately received him by supplying inferior quality marble. Due to the acts of the opp.party the complainant sustained damages to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- towards prize of the marble, Rs 28,100/- towards the value of of whiler cement and other materials Rs.33,500/- towards labor charges paid to the 2nd opp.party , which the complainant is entitled to realize from the opp.party. In addition to that he is entitled to get Rs,50,000/- towards compensation.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a joint version . The 2nd opp.party was engaged by the complainant for the work in the building constructed by the complainant. The complainant is a person who was sufficient knowledge in the construction of building he has inspected marble and purchased them satisfying himself of the quality of the marble the complainant has taken comparatively a inferior quality marble he has selected the prize approximately 3,000/- sq. feet marble slabs himself and the opp.party charged for only 2850/- sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. For long the marble the complainant offered Rs.20/- per sq.ft. and for long broken marble he offtered Rs.12/- per sq.ft. to the 2nd opp.party. For the above work the 2nd opp.party purchased sand for Rs.3,200/- cement for Rs.13044 Teak wood for Rs.11,130/- Rs.6600/- towards cost of white cement Rs.1,200/- towards labour charges and Rs.11.500 for constructing compound wall and installing gate, the above amount has been so far the complainant to the 2nd opp.party. The complainant has purchased the marble satisfying himself of the quality and the marble was aid as per his direction and supervision. The complainant has selected very inferior quality marble and he has inspected the marble himself and purchased the same. The averments that the marble was purchased at the rate of Rs.58/- per sq.ft. is faults. The averment that the complainant has paid Rs.1,65,000/- towards cost to marble to the 1st opp.party is faults and hence denied. The opp.party has received only the amount shown in the bill. The laying work was done as per direction to supervision of the complainant the 2nd opp.party has not received any amount to the complainant for the above work. At the time in the grinding work was completely the complainant said that some financial difficulties and to stop the work and accordingly 2nd opp.party stop the work. There after when the 2nd opp.party went to the site it was noticed the complainant has engaged other person and building the work thereupon the 2nd opp.party demanded the amount due to him and their upon the complainant attempted to hazards the 2nd opp.party who manage to escape from them. The attempt of the complainant not to pay the amount due to the 2nd opp.party the complainant has never intimated to the first opp.party about the defects in the marble slabs. The opp.party is not liability for the use of the broken marble and inferior quality marble given to the complainant free of charge the averments that the complainant has purchased superior quality marble from the first opp.party is false and hence denied. Hence the opp.parties prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> [1] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [2] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1 series and P2 are marked<br /> No oral evidence adduced by the opp.parties<br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 & 2<br /> <br /> <br /> According to the complainant the opp.party 1 supplied inferior quality marbles to him after showing 3-4 slabs of superior quality marble and the same came to his notice at the time. When the same was laid. According to him repaid @ Rs.58/- sq.feet for 2850 sq.feet.<br /> <br /> Ext.P1 series are the bills issued by opp.party 1 for the marble purchased. It shows PW.1 purchased 2850 sq.feet marble for which he had paid @ Rs.30 sq.feet. Though PW.1 would claim that reduced rate was shown in the bill by opp.party 1 with a view to same sales tax. However that contention is not supported by any material In Ext.P2 expert report the expert has stated that the market value marble laid in the house of PW.1 would be between Rs.350-40. If Ext.P2 is accepted the case PW.1 that the prize in P1 series was shown with a view to evade sales tax cannot be believed for a moment. So the contention that opp.party supplied inferior quality marble after collecting higher charge cannot be accepted<br /> <br /> The contention of the complaint is that the 1st opp.party showed him marbles slabs which had no defects but major portion of marble supplied were defective which came to his notice at the time of laying . The expert had also reported that the marbles laid in the house of PW.1 had damages and defects which can be due to the inferior quality as contended by PW.1. The opp.party has not adduce any contra evidence to disprove this contention. The expert has reported in Ext.P2 that the marble is likely to develop more cracks when polishing is done which will affect its strength and beauty. The expert further stated that the size of the marble slabs are to be reduced to 60 x 60 cms or nearing size avoiding the grooves and can be used. If that is done considerable expenditure towards labour charges will have to be incurred.<br /> <br /> From Ext.P1 series and Ext.P2 it is obvious that the contention of PW.1 that Opp.party 1 collected excess charges for the marble supplied is unfounded . The price shown in Ext.P1 series is corroborated by the price stated in P2 by the expert. Infact the price in Ext.P1 series is lesser than what is stated in P2 for similar category marbles. So the contention that reduced price was shown in P1 series has no legs to stand. However the contention that a portion of the marbles supplied by opp.party 1 to PW.1 were defective stands un-impeached<br /> <br /> <br /> According to PW.1 he had spent considerable amount for laying marble. But the bills for purchasing cement etc were not produced. Therefore the evidence of PW.1 in this regard cannot be safely accepted. The expert has assessed the expenditure towards this item at Rs.20,000/- which also cannot be safely accepted as he was not examined from the available evidence. We find that there is adduce deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Taking all aspects into consideration we are inclined to grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs. Rs. 20,000/- will be paid by Opp.party 1 and Rs.5,000/- will be paid by opp.party 2.. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA :<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. - Gopakumar.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – series - Cash bill<br /> P2. –Commission report <br /> <br /> <br />