Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/123/2016

Dr.V.Umamaheshwarappa S/o late puttanayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajkumar M/S,Rajkumar Granites - Opp.Party(s)

P.Shivashankaramurthy

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:17/12/2016

DISPOSED      ON:02/06/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO: 123/2016

 

DATED: 2^nd JUNE 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Dr. P. Umamaheshwarappa, S/o Late Puttanaik, Age: 41 Years, Sevalal Sadana, Behind RMP Yard, Vedavathi Nagar, Hiriyur town, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P. Shivashankara Murthy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. Rajkumar, Shop Owner,  M/s Rajakumar Granites, Mysore Road, Hiriyur town, Chitradurga.   2. Style Ceramics, Opp: Shiva Hotel, Rajpath Corner, More B-3642, Gujrath.      (Rep by Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards cost of the granite and tiles, Rs.2,00,000/- towards labour charge, Rs.50,000/- towards cement and sand and Rs.8,000/- towards rent for labour room, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony in total a sum of Rs.5,58,000/- along with interest from the date of complaint till realization and cost of Rs.5,000/-.   

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, as the complainant and OP No.1 are close friends for a long time, on 11.07.2015 complainant has purchased the flooring granites, wall tiles, vitrified granites and wall tiles, anticides and other materials from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- through cash and cheque.  OP No.2 is manufacturer of the above materials.  It is further submitted that, at the time of laying the vitrified granites, wall tiles and anticides, the workers by name Veeresh and Katappa told that, the materials are not good and to bring good materials.  The complainant bring the OP No.1 to the spot and shown the materials supplied by the OP No.1.  By that time, OP No.1 told that, I have contacted the OP No.2, the manufacturer and OP No.1 informed to the complainant that, as per the manufacturer the supplied materials are good.  On the promise given by the OP No.1, the complainant laid the above said granites and tiles to the ground and walls and the work was completed in the month of December 2015.  After four months, there was a change of the colour in the granite and tiles. The complainant has informed the OP No.1 regarding change of colour and breaking of tiles.  By that time, the OP No.1 told the complainant that, we have called the agents from OP No.1 for inspection.  It is further submitted that, as per the assurance given by the OP No.1 the complainant waited for more time for rectification of the defects in the materials but, the OPs never take any care for rectification of defects in the materials.  On 03.06.2016, the complainant send a notice to the OPs for rectification of defective materials.  The OP No.1 has received a notice and a sent a reply to the complainant on 16.06.2016 but, the OP No.1 failed to reply, which shows the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards purchase of the materials, Rs.2,00,000/- towards labour charge, Rs.50,000/- towards purchasing of cement and sand and Rs.8,000/- rent of the labour shed and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony in total Rs.5,58,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.  The cause of action for the complaint arose on 11.07.2015, when the complainant purchased the materials and date of issuance of the legal notice to the OPs on 03.06.2016 and reply given by the OP No.2 on 16.06.2016 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint. 

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate and filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint.  It is not in dispute that, the OP No.1 is very well known to the complainant since several years.  That on 05.07.2015, the complainant has purchased granites for flooring, vitrified granites anti-sides and other materials from OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and the complainant has paid the same to the OP No.1 through cheque and cash.  OP No.2 is the manufacturer of said materials.  The allegations made in para 2 of the complaint are all denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The averments stated in para 3 of the complaint are all created stories by the complainant to harass, cause loss and to create inconvenience to OP No.1.  The allegations alleged in para 4 of the complaint are all denied as false.  The notice was received by OP No.1 and replied for the same is true and correct.  The allegations alleged in para 5 of the complaint are denied as false.  The allegations made in para 6 of the complaint are false and imaginary one.  The OP No.2 is the manufacturer and the OP No.1 is only the dealer of the materials is true and correct and the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  There is no cause of action for filing this complain         and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-20 were got marked. On behalf of OPs, one Sri. Jayanthi Lal. D, the Proprietor of OP No.1 has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.  

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, on 11.07.2015 complainant has purchased the flooring granites, wall tiles, vitrified granites and wall tiles, antisides and other materials from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- through cash and cheque which was manufactured by OP No.2.  It is argued that, at the time of laying the same, the workers by name Veeresh and Katappa have told that, the materials are not good and to bring good materials.  The complainant brought OP No.1 to the spot and shown the materials supplied by the OP No.1, OP No.1 contacted the OP No.2, the manufacturer and told the complainant that, as per the manufacturer the supplied materials are good.  On the assurance given by the OP No.1, the complainant has laid the above said granites and tiles to the ground and walls and the work was completed in the month of December 2015.  After four months, there was a change of the colour in the granite and tiles. The complainant has informed the OP No.1 regarding change of colour and breaking of tiles.  OP No.1 told the complainant that, they have called the agents from OP No.1 for inspection and as per the assurance given by the OP No.1, the complainant waited for long time for rectification of the defects in the materials but, the OPs never taken any care for rectification of defects in the materials. 

 9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Bills for having purchased the materials from OP No.1 marked as Ex.A-1 to 12 and Ex.A-17 to 20 by paying requisite amount to OP No.1, Office copy of the legal notice dated 03.06.2016 issued by the complainant to the OPs calling upon to rectify the defective materials supplied marked as Ex.A-13, Reply to the notice dated 16.06.2016 and the cover sent the OP No.1 denying the averments made in the legal notice issued by the complainant, marked as Ex.A-14 and 15, Photo copies showing shading of colour and breaking of the vitrified tiles marked as Ex.A-16. 

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OPs that, on 05.07.2015, the complainant has purchased vitrified granites, wall tiles, anti-sides and other materials from OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- by paying the same through cheque and cash. It is argued and admitted by the OPs that, OP No.2 is the manufacturer and OP No.1 is a dealer of the materials and the rest of the averments made by the complainant in his complaint.  It is argued by the OPs that, they have supplied good materials to the complainant and there is no defects in the materials purchased by the complainant.  Whatever the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are not correct and the complainant has created cock and bull story and his intention is to grab the money from the OPs and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.             

11.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence produced by the complainant, it clearly made out that, the bills produced by the complainant as per Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 and Ex.A-17 to Ex.A-20, the complainant has purchased the materials i.e., granites and vitrified tiles and wall tiles from the OP No.1, the dealer.  The OP No.1 also admits that, the complainant has purchased the materials by paying a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.  After purchasing the materials from OP No.1, the complainant has laid the same in his newly constructed house.  But, within four months of laying the same, the colour of the tiles was shaded and air breaks.  The contention taken by the OP No.1 in his reply notice that, they have supplied good materials and before supplying, they have inspected the materials but, at the time of installation, the workers have properly installed.  When the complainant has orally intimated to the OP No.1 with regard to the defects in the material, by that time, the OP No.1 visited the spot and promised the complainant to solve the problems by consenting with the OP No.2, but failed to fulfil its promise, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The OP No.1 has sold the materials without Tax Bills as shown in the Ex.A-17 to Ex.A-20, which shows that, the OPs have cheated the complainant and other public which is against to the trade practice.     Hence, the OPs have committed a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get the relief.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as affirmative to the complainant.          

 

            12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards purchase of materials and Rs.2,00,000/- towards laying charges, Rs.50,000/- towards cost of cement and sand, Rs.8,000/- towards rent for labour living shed and Rs.50,000/- towards mental in all a sum of Rs. 5,58,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 02/06/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Jayanthi Lal, Proprietor of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1 to 13 and Ex.A-17 to Ex.A-20:-	Bills for having purchased the materials
02	Ex-A-14 & 15:-	Reply to the notice dated 16.06.2016 and the cover sent the OP No.1 denying the averments made in the legal notice issued by the complainant
03	Ex-A-16:-	Photo copies showing shading of colour and breaking of the vitrified tiles

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-NIL-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**