Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/245/2016

Ram Sawrup - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram Marble House - Opp.Party(s)

Bhal Singh

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

C.C.No.245/2016.

Date of Instt.:19.09.2016.

Date of Decision:20.03.2018.

 

Ram Sawrup, aged 51 years, son of Sh.Ramji Lal, Caste Kumhar, resident of village Migani Khera, Tehsil and District Hisar, at present village Matana,, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

..Complainant

     Versus

Shree Ram Marble House, Near Bhuna Mor, G.T.Road, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, through its Proprietor Kanha Ram Chaudhary.

 

..Opposite Party

 

           Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:       Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Sh.M.K.Khurana, Member.

                  

                  

Argued by: Sh. Bhal Singh Bishnoi, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Sh. Raj Kumar Panwar, Advocate for opposite party.

 

ORDER:

 

The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (hereinafter to be referred as OP) with the averments that he had purchased marble stones of Rs.78,140/- @ Rs.42/- per square feet from the OP on 15.03.2016. At the time of purchasing of the said marble stones the complainant had made a payment of Rs.60,000/- to the OP and the complainant was given a temporary bill in the presence of Rajender @ Chhanga Ram son of Bhagi Rath, resident of village Matana, Distt. Fatehabad and the complainant was assured by the OP that Pakka Bill  will be given after some time.

2.                It is further submitted that at the time of selling of above said marble stones the OP had assured that the said marble of Makrana variety is of very fine quality and it was also assured that it will give shining. It is also further submitted that after some time the complainant made a payment of balance amount of Rs.17,140/- to the OP and sought the Pakka Bill. However the OP avoided the matter and after some time refused to give any bill to the complainant.

3.                It is further submitted that the complainant purchased crasher of Rs.18,900 from Ambe Building Maerial Store, Fatehabad and also purchased cement  of Rs.14,500/- on 23.04.2016 and of Rs.17,400/- on 14.05.2016 from Goyal Cement Store, G.T.Road, Fatehabad. During the fixing and shuffling of the marble the complainant had taken electric generator on rent and a payment of Rs.9000/- was paid as rent. The complainant also paid Rs.9600/- to Jita Singh who worked as labourer and Rs.16,000/- to the contractor namely Satya Narayan  for fixing and shuffling of the stones. The complainant also made payment of Rs.25,000/- to Manoj Kumar for fixing the stones. Apart from this the complainant also spent Rs.10,000/- as rent of tractor and diesel oil in generator. As per detailed above the complainant had spent Rs.2,17,440/- in total.

4.                It is further submitted that after some time the complainant noticed that the marble fixed by the complainant purchased from OP in all the four rooms and kitchen was not of a good quality and many black splash/marks and some cracks were there in the marble. There was no shining and marble looked coarse.

5.                It is further submitted that regarding the defect in the marble purchased from the OP the complainant made a complaint to the OP and he was assured that he will be compensated very soon. However finally the OP refused to compensate the  complainant and also did not give pucca bill of the marble. Thereafter a legal notice was served by the complainant to the OP but the OP did not give any reply to the legal notice. The above said act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service to him. The complainant has further prayed that the OP be directed for making the payment of Rs.2,17,440/- along-with interest and also Rs.2 lacs as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges, Hence, the present complaint.

6.                On being served, the OP appeared through his counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, concealment of material facts, estopped by his act and conduct and locus-standi etc., have been raised.

7.                On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased marble stones form the OP and a payment of Rs. 60,000/- was made by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant himself had selected the Makarana variety of marble after getting himself fully satisfied and the marble stones were handed over to the complainant after cutting the same from the area of his choice. It is incorrect that the OP had denied to handover Pakka Bill to the complainant. The complainant even today ready to handover the Pakka Bill but the balance amount of Rs.28,989/- has not been paid by the complainant till date. In case the above said balance payment is made by the complainant in that eventuality the OP is ready to handover Pakka Bill to the complainant. The OP in his reply has denied all the allegations made in the complaint. The OP also denied that an amount of Rs.2,17,440/- was spent by the complainant in fixing the marble. It is further submitted that the complainant did not sell inferior quality of marble to the complainant and the black spot on the marble is a common feature and the same are natural. It is further submitted that inferior or sub-standard quality of marble was not sold by the OP to the complainant and as such there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OP selling the marble in question to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.                Thereafter the complainant filed replication to the written statement wherein averments made in the written statement have been denied and the averments made in the complaint have been reiterated.

9.       In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A wherein the averments made in the complaint have been re-affirmed. Sh.Chhanga Ram @ Rajender also filed an affidavit as Ex.CW2 in evidence in support of the case of the complainant. The complainant also tendered in evidence the documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and Annexure C1. On the other hand, Sh.Kanha Ram, Proprietor of OP filed an affidavit as Annexure R1 in evidence in support of his case. The OP also tendered in evidence the document as Annexure R2.

10.              During the proceedings the complainant filed an application dated 01.08.2017 for appointment of SDO PWD B&R, Fatehabad as Local Commissioner to check the quality of marble in question as expert. After hearing both the parties, the said application was allowed vide order dated 15.09.2017 and Executive Engineer PWD B&R, Fatehabad was directed to appoint technical expert having expertise in matter in issue as a Local Commissioner and give opinion as the marble in question is defective or not. In complaisance of above said order Sh.Krishan Goyat, SDE PWD B&R, Fatehabad visited the spot and tendered his opinion dated 20.12.2017.

11.              We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that the OP had sold him defective and sub-standard marble stone and after fixing of the same  many black marks and some cracks appeared in the marble stones, there was no shining and marble looked coarse. The above said act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice in selling the marble stone to him and on account of the same the complainant has suffered huge loss.

12               To decide the controversy involved in the present case as to whether the marble stones sold by the OP to the complainant is defective or of sub-standard quality. A Local Commissioner was appointed on the directions of this Forum to give his expert opinion as to whether the marble in question is defective, sub-standard or of inferior quality. Sh.Krishan Goyat, Sub-Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R) Department of Haryana visited the spot on 15.12.2017 and checked the quality of marble in presence of complainant, Sh.Bhal Singh Beniwal counsel for the complainant and Sh.Raj Kumar Panwar counsel for the OP. On inspection the Local Commission submitted his opinion that some cracks, holes, linears, colour change, spot on the marble stone were found, also that the shining on the marble was not good and looking very splotch, rough and coarse. It is also opined that the quality of marble inspected by the Local Commissioner was inferior. The quality of marble stone was not satisfactory.

13               Keeping in view the above said opinion of the Local Commissioner i.e. Sub Divisional Engineer, proviso Sub-Division-2 PWD (B&R), Fatehabad, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove that defective, sub-standard and inferior quality of marble stone was sold by OP to the complainant. Therefore the present complaint is hereby allowed.

14.              Regarding quantum of loss it is the case of the complainant that he made a payment of Rs.60,000/- to the OP at the time of purchase of marble stone and the remaining payment of Rs.18,140/- was made later  on as is evident from Annexure C-1. Regarding loss it is further the case of the complainant that he purchased crasher of Rs.18,900/- and cement of Rs.31,500/- for fixing the stones. In support of this contention the complainant has relied upon the documents as Annexures C-3 to C-8. However from perusal of Annexures C-3 to C-8 it is not evident that the said material was purchased by the complainant as name of the purchaser is not mentioned on the bills. It is further the case of the complainant that he paid Rs.25,000/- for fixation of the marble (Ex.C-10), Rs.16000/- for ghisai (raghrai) of the marble (Ex.C-9) Rs.9600/- to labourer (Ex.C-11) Rs.9000/- rent of generator (Ex.C-12). It is further the case of the complainant that he suffered a loss total of Rs.2,17,440/- on account of inferior quality of marble sold to him by the OP and he has prayed for payment of Rs.2,17,440/- on account of loss suffered by him. We are of the considered opinion that relief sought by the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,17,440/- is on a higher side. Moreover the marble stone purchased by the complainant is being used by him. We assess the loss of the complainant as Rs.80,000/-. Therefore keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case we direct to OP for making payment of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency and unfair trade practice adopted by him in selling the stone in question.  The OP is further directed for making payment of Rs.4000/- to the complainant as litigation charges. The present complaint is accordingly disposed of. The OP is further directed to comply with the order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum.                                                   Dated:20.03.2018

                                                                                                                  President

                                                                                                               (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                                       (M.K.Khurana)                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

 Member                            Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.