Haryana

Jind

115/13

Dilawar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Salasar Marbles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satyawan Singh

16 Dec 2014

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 115 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 24.5.2013

   Date of final order: 23.1.2015

 

Dilawar Singh son of Sh. Raj Singh r/o Bhatnagar Colony Rohtak road, Jind, District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

Shri Salasar Marbles & Granites Patiala road, Cheeka, District Kaithal, Haryana though its Manager/Proprietor.

                                                          …..Opposite party.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

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

             Sh. Sunil Jakhar, Adv. for  Opposite Party.

            

ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased 2000 Sq. feet marbles for a sum of Rs.49,775/- vide bill No.1022 dated 9.1.2013 from the opposite party.  The marbles have been supplied by the opposite party at Jind. Some pieces of the marbles found cracks. The opposite party informed immediately regarding cracks of marbles. The opposite party has supplied the inferior quality of marbles to the complainant.  The complainant requested to the opposite party to replace the cracks marble but the opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 20.2.2013 through his

                        Dilawar Singh Vs. Shri Salasar Marble

                                           …2…

counsel Sh. Satyawan Singh Adv. upon the opposite party but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to replace the cracks marble or to refund the costs of marble as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party has  put in appearance and filed  the written statement stating  in the  preliminary objections that the complainant has no  locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts and the complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is contended that the complainant selected the marble himself  and opposite party has no responsible of any cracks in the marble. After the selection and satisfaction of complainant, the marble slabs were loaded in the vehicle. The marbles slabs were sold without charging and after deducting the cracked portion of  marbles.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with heavy cost is prayed for.

3.     In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, cash memo Ex. C-2 and C-3, challan Ex. C-4, receipt Ex. C-5, copy of receipt Ex. C-6, copy of legal notice dated 20.2.2013 Ex. C-7, postal receipt Ex. C-8 and acknowledgment Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence.   On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar Ex. OP-1,  postal receipt Ex. OP-2, 

                        Dilawar Singh Vs. Shri Salasar Marble

                                           …3…

copy of reply of legal notice Ex. OP-3, document Ex. OP-4, copy of  cash memo Ex. OP-5 and copy of legal notice dated 20.2.2013 Ex. OP-6  and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant purchased 2000 Sq. feet marbles @ 22 per square feet for a sum of Rs.49.775/- vide bill No.1022 dated 9.1.2013 from the opposite party and the opposite party supplied the above material at Jind through vehicle No. HR67-0753 and freight of Rs.3500/- has been paid by the complainant. But at the time of receipt of said items some pieces of the marble found cracks and the complainant informed the opposite party immediately and the opposite party assured the complainant to replace the same but the opposite party has not changed the said marbles. The opposite party has supplied the inferior quality of marbles. The complainant served a legal notice dated 20.2.2013 upon the opposite party and after the receipt of notice the opposite party assured the complainant to compensate him and finally refused to pay the amount or to replace the marble. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged.

5.     On the other hand, the opposite party has averred that the complainant selected the marble himself and the said marbles was got loaded himself by the complainant and was taken from the shop of opposite party. The opposite party has no concern with supply and hire of the said vehicle. The complainant himself hired the said vehicle for taking the purchased marble to his house. The opposite party has no

                        Dilawar Singh Vs. Shri Salasar Marble

                                           …4…

responsibility of any cracks in the marble after loading of the same from the shop of opposite party. Moreover, the conditions have been printed on the  bill No.1022 dated 9.1.2013 which were also read over by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6.     In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it was the responsibility of the complainant to bring the marbles safe in his supervision after loading in the Tempo/Truck. The opposite party is only responsible for breakage before the loading of the material and not after transportation at the destination, hence no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As such the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 23.1.2015

                                                                President,

          Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind