Haryana

Ambala

CC/82/2017

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Durga Mrbles - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

        Complaint Case No   : 82 of 2017.

      Date of Institution    :  16.03.2017.

         Date of Decision      :  17.09.2018    

Jasbir Singh s/o Sh.Ballu Ram, resident of V.P.O. Saha, Tehsil & District Ambala.

 

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Shree Durga Marbles, Sehzadpur Road, near Hanuman Mandir, Saha District Ambala. (Through its Prop.)
2. Billu s/o Babu Ram village Rampur P.O.Bihta, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala (Mistri Marble fixer).

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

         

Present:       Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Deepak Kumar, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh.L.R.Saini, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased marble 350 pieces 12X24 vide bill No.2483 dated 02.08.2016 for Rs.20558/- and 3 pieces of Granite Stone bearing Bill No.2484 for Rs.21041 on 02.08.2016 and 1500 ft.marble patti black and red from Op No.1 and he also deputed Op No.2 for fixing the alleged purchased articles. The complainant has spent Rs.4,30,000/- on the material and labour but he came to know (since the complainant is blind person) that some pieces of marbles got broken and some are braked during finishing. The complainant approached OPs but they did not pay any heed to his requests. It all happened due to poor quality of marble and poor work of the marble fixer. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CA, Annexure CB and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C19.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and concealment of material facts etc. The house of the complainant is situated about 400 meters from the shop of Op No.1 and he himself had selected the marble. There may be several causes of damage of marble such as not fixing on the floor properly.  On the bill it has been clearly mentioned that please check the goods at the shop, there is no responsibility of damage in the way, there may be damage of one tile in average.  The Op No.2 is not known to the Op No.1. No inferior quality of marbles were sold to the complainant and more-so, the same has been purchased with due satisfaction of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and the complainant has neither spent Rs.4,30,000/- on the material and fixing of marble and nor suffered any loss. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op No.2 in its reply submitted separate reply wherein it has been submitted that he was only labour with meson Kala from UP and he has not installed the marble in the house of the complainant.  The complainant did not pay even a single penny despite working his house for 50 days and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is due towards the complainant.   The complainant himself had purchased the marble and the same was installed by one Kala in the supervision of complainant and his wife. No harassment has ever been made towards the complainant by the Op No.2. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure RA.

3.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

4.                Undisputedly, complainant had purchased the marble in question from Op No.1 vide Annexure C1 and Annexure C2. Case of the complainant that after fixing the purchased marble and granite etc.same has been fixed by OP No.2 being a meson and the complainant found after sometime that some pieces of the marble were broken and some are braked during finishing then he approached to Ops. The Op No.1 has described to the complainant that they have sold the marble as it is a natural product and answering Op is not a manufacturer and has been supplied as it is after its purchase by him. It is only fault on the part of the marble meson (mistri) in his work. Upon this, complainant approached to OP No.2 he said that quality of the marble was not so good both refused to do anything in the matter. OP No.2 has taken the objection that he is only labourer and Mr.Kala r/o UP was the meson of the complainant to install the marble in the house of the complainant and he further taken the objection that complainant himself has brought the marble and meson has correctly installed the marble even the complainant has not paid the labour charges to him.

                             To prove this facts complainant moved any application for appointment of expert to check the marble, quality and why the marble was damaged after fixing on the floor for the just decision of the case.

                             This Forum had directed Executive Engineer Provisional Division No.1 to appoint Civil Engineer i.e.Sub Divisional Engineer to visit the spot and check the total area where the marble is fixed with the report regarding cracks/ damage in the marble covered with the lobby, rooms, kitchen etc. Sh.Surender Singh, SDE PSD -5, PWD B&R, Ambala Cantt. inspected the spot in the presence of the parties and made the following report:

                             Marble flooring was inspected thoroughly. Marble of cut piece has been laid in flooring. Minor Cracks upto 2 ” to 3” were found in few pieces. At random 500 pieces were counted from floor in front of court yard  rooms, back court yard & kitchen. 500 pieces were counted out of which 6 pieces were having minor cracks upto 2” to 3 ” in length. 2 Pieces were having through cracks appox. 1.5 % pieces were found cracked. These cracks might have developed due to poor workmanship etc. while grinding/carriage/loading-unloading or due to temperature variation. Over all condition of flooring is satisfactory.

                    The crux of the report is that there are cracks in the marble upto 2” to 3” in length in 6 pieces and 2 pieces were having through cracks appox. 1.5 % pieces were found cracked. The expert has given the report that the cracks might have developed due to poor workmanship etc. while grinding/carriage/ loading and unloading. We have also perused the photographs Annexure C4 to Annexure C16. Some cracks found in the some pieces of marble but expert has given the opinion it might be due to poor workmanship above said cracks have been developed. OP No.2 has taken the specific objection that Kala Ram resident of UP was the meson. He was only a labourer. The burden shift on the complainant as he has to implead the said Kala Ram meson in this case and without impleading him whenever expert has given the specific findings that due to poor workmanship by the meson the above said cracks have developed the complainant cannot take the plea or help that whether any poor workmanship was on the part of meson or there was defect in the marble. There is no other clinching evidence in this case to come to this conclusion that the cracks mentioned by the expert due to the fault of Op No.1. Even otherwise, the report of LC is not supporting the case of the complainant rather complainant has not filed any objections against the report of LC. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, present case is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 17.09.2018                                             (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        

                                       MEMBER