BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 443/2004 Filed on 25.11.2004<br /> Dated : 30.05.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> K. Retnamma, V.P I/1109, Kadambari, Pirayil, Pinaroor Lane, Peyad, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.The Proprietor, New Rajasthan Marbles, Pulimoodu, Chirayinkeezh.<br /> (By adv. K. Radhakrishnan)<br /> 2.The Proprietor, World Marbles, Koonthalloor, Chirayinkeezh.<br /> (By adv. Manoj Mohan) <br /> This O.P having been heard on 11.04.2008, the Forum on 30.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: On 09.10.2003, the complainant had approached the opposite party for selecting granite and bathroom tiles and as per the assurance of the opposite party that the above mentioned items would be delivered at the house of the complainant on the very next day itself, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 30000/- and the balance amount was also paid by the complainant as agreed at the time of unloading the said items by the opposite parties’ staff. Only at the time of laying, the complainant came to know that the opposite party had sent substandard quality and another colour different from the one selected by the complainant. This was informed to the opposite party and the opposite party asked the complainant to bring it back. Since the complainant was unable to do so, the opposite party’s staff asked the complainant to wait for a week till their owner is back. But no positive action was seen taken from the part of the opposite party. Hence complainant again contacted the opposite party and informed them their difficulty with regard to their stay in a rented house and their necessity to complete the work of their own house. Hence the opposite party directed the complainant to lay the tile and they shall adjust the difference in price. Accordingly it was laid. But even after repeated requests no action has been taken by the opposite party for adjusting the price. Hence this complaint against the opposite parties for compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. <br /> The 1st opposite party had filed their detailed version contending as follows: The complainant had purchased 1000 sq. ft. granite by paying an amount of Rs. 34140/- from this opposite party and there is no agreement between the complainant and this opposite party. The complainant had never purchased items worth Rs. 65913/- from this opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The complainant had come to this opposite party’s shop in person on 10.10.2003 and she herself had selected the items of her choice at her satisfaction and purchased the items for Rs. 34140/- after due bargaining. This opposite party had never agreed to replace the granites or adjust the price as averred in the complaint. Complainant has been supplied with the granites worth the price paid and she cannot expect high quality granites for the price of the granites she had purchased. Complainant has neither complained with regard to the granites nor contacted the opposite party over phone as alleged in the complaint. Complainant has never entrusted any piece of tiles with the opposite party as alleged. That there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.<br /> The 2nd opposite party in their version contends as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased items worth Rs. 9888/- from this opposite party on 10.10.2003. There is no agreement between the complainant and this opposite party. The complainant had selected the items and purchased the items on her own. Complainant had never purchased items worth Rs. 65913/-. The charges with regard to unloading mentioned in the complaint is false, since it is the responsibility of the person who purchases the items. This complaint has been filed after one year of the purchase and use of the items from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has never raised any complaint before its use, if at all she had any complaints she could have approached this opposite party. She has never contacted this opposite party over phone or by other means as alleged in the complaint. There is no evidence with regard to the poor quality of the granites as averred in the complaint. This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant for the false allegations levelled against them in the complaint and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs to this opposite party.<br /> Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on her side. An expert commissioner has been appointed by the Forum and his report is marked as Ext. C1. Opposite parties had no evidence. <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:- <br /> (i)Whether there is unfair trade practice leading to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?<br /> Point No. (i):- The main allegations of the complainant is that she has been supplied with substandard, poor quality tiles as against the order placed by her. According to the complainant, she had selected the tiles and paid an advance amount and the balance amount was paid when the opposite party unloaded the tiles at her house. But when she started laying the tiles, it was found that the tiles delivered are not the one selected by her. And according to the complainant she had contacted the opposite party several times with regard to this complaint and as per their direction she had laid the tiles and requested the opposite party for adjusting the amount which has not been done enunciating this complaint. But according to the opposite parties, since the complainant had herself come in person to the shop and selected the item, bargained the price and purchased the item, she cannot now complain about the quality of the tiles, since the tiles purchased by the complainant are worth that amount. We perused the commission report. In Ext. C1, the commissioner has observed that the granite slab is of good quality and the market price is even greater then that mentioned in the bills issued by the opposite parties. The ceramic tiles laid in bathroom is of standard quality and price is that of existing market price. Besides all these the commissioner has further observed that the rate mentioned in Ext. P1 issued by the 2nd opposite party as Rs. 65/- per sq. ft. is seen lesser than the market price. According to the commissioner, granite slabs of the same quality will cost more than Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. The commissioner has stated that the granite tiles laid on the floor are of substandard quality and he suggests that it is not matching the construction of the house. This above said observation is only personal opinion and suggestion on the part of the commissioner which is not acceptable. At this juncture, the important point to be considered is whether the opposite party has supplied poor and substandard quality tiles to the complainant stating that it is a good one. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had gone to the 1st opposite party's shop and selected the items on her own. The dispute is with regard to the items supplied. The complainant alleges that the items supplied are not tallying with the one selected by her , the opposite parties contend otherwise. On perusal of the records on file, it is seen that no complaint has been sent by the complainant alleging the same to the opposite parties. If at all she had any complaints with regard to the supply she should have brought that to the notice of the opposite parties at an earlier stage itself. The complainant alleges she had informed them over phone and in person for which there is no evidence adduced. Since the opposite parties deny the same the the onus is on the part of the complainant to prove the same. Moreover this complaint is seen filed after a long lapse of one year. What prevented the complainant from raising the complaint at an earlier period of time is not known. The complainant has miserably failed to prove her complaint. For the foregoing discussions, this Forum is inclined to conclude that the complaint is only to be dismissed.<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th May 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD, <br /> President<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.443/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> PW1 - K. Retnamma<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - True copy of Bill No. 935 and 953 dated 10.10.2003. <br /> P2 - True copy of Bill No. 284 dated 101.10.2003 for Rs. 6190/-. <br /> P3 - True copy of letter dated 14.10.2004 from the complainant to the opposite parties.<br /> P4 - True copy of letter No. 10-160-697-2092 dated 15.11.2004 from Manager, Customer Care Centre, Tvpm – 695 001.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> V COURT EXHIBIT:<br /> <br /> C1 - Commission Report dated 04.09.2006<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />