DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.90 of 16
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 04-05.2016
DATE OF ORDER: 29-11-2016
Chatter Singh aged 60 years son of Sh. Dhanpat Singh, resident of H. No. 43A, Friends Colony, Kharkari Road, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Saraswathi Granite and Marble, Tigrana Mor Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its Proprietor.
- Rajender singh son of Sh. Ramswarup Contractor, Saraswathi Granite and Marble, Tigrana More Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. A.K. Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 06.10.2014 he had purchased Marble & Granite Stone from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 04, dated 28.08.2015 of Rs. 1,81,039/- and after getting done uploading of the stone at the site, the work of pavement and rubbing the stone was also got done from OP no. 2. It is alleged that as the flooring is to be done after completion of the masonry work and for this purpose complainant had purchased the cement of Rs. 37,700/- and crusher of Rs. 14,850/- alongwith other necessary material suggested by the OP no. 2. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 completed the work on 02.10.2015 and the total labour charges were calculated as per measurement Rs. 95,000/- for pavement and rubbing. It is alleged that after rubbing the floor it was washed and noticed by the complainant that hairline cracks were seen on the floor. It is alleged that the matter was brought into the notice of OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 assured the complainant to compensate with regard to above said loss. It is alleged that the complainant had met with OP no. 1 a number of times but OP no. 1 had given false assurance to compensate on one pretext or the other. He also sent a legal notice dated 12.11.2015 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for seeking compensation.
2. OPs have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.07.2016.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-27 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant.
5. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the slab, stone and granite etc. was purchased by the complainant from OP no. 1. The OP no. 1 deputed the OP no. 2 for the pavement of marbles. He further submitted that the entire work of stone, slab and granite was done by OP no. 2. After completion of flooring the rubbing was done by OP no. 2, and it was found by the complainant that the slope of water was not towards the specified drainage. After the washing of the floors it was found that there are hairlines cracks in the floor. It shows that these cracks were already existing in the stone and the OP no. 1 supplied the stone of sub standard quality to cheat the complainant. Both the Ops in collusion with each other cheated the complainant. The complainant visited the OP no. 1 a number of times but the OP no. 1 despite assurance did not compensate the complainant. Legal notice dated 12.11.2015 was also served on the Ops. The complainant has paid the stone charges and labour charges to the Ops no. 1 & 2, respectively.
6. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the complainant, we have examined the relevant material on the record. The complainant in support of his contention, has produced photographs Annexure C-9 to C-23, bills Annexure C-1 and C-8 and rough site plan Annexure C-6 etc. During the course of arguments, it was admitted by the counsel for the complainant that the range of the marble stone/slab start from a lower rates to higher rates and several qualities of stone/slab are available in the market according to the range. The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has purchased the slab in question ranging from Rs. 45 to 54/-. However, the slabs for higher rates upto Rs. 150-200/- are also available in the market. The complainant has alleged that the stone supplied by the OP no. 1 was of sub standard quality and has produced the affidavit of Tarif Singh Manson in support of his contention, but he has not sought test report from the approved laboratory as envisaged under Section 13 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act regarding the quality of the slab. The counsel for the complainant has stressed that the stone supplied by the OP no. 1 was of low quality having cracks and he intentionally deputed OP no. 2 to conceal the defect in the stone. The Ops did not bother to appear and contest the claim of the complainant. In these circumstances and the peculiar facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant against the Ops. The Ops no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the said amount of compensation in ratio of 60 and 40 per cent respectively. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:.29-11-2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
