Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/30/2016

Y.Papaiah Naidu, S/o Yerraiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Siddartha Tiles and Sanitary Private Limited, rep. by its proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Y.Nagaraju

05 Jan 2017

ORDER

        

 

                                                                                                                                                         Filing Date:-18-04-2016                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:  05-01-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                            Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

                                   THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.30/2016

Between

Y. Papaiah Naidu, S/o. Yerraiah,

Hindu, aged about 45 years,

Business, residing at

D.No. 7/348,

New Krishna Nagar,

Railway Kodur – 516 101,

Kadapa District.                                                                                … Complainant

 

And

1. Siddartha Tiles & Sanitary Private Limited.,

Rep. by its Propreitor,

Plot No. 14,

TUDA Plots,

R.C. Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District

 

2. H & R Johnson Tiles,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Holding its office at Windsor,

7^th Floor, C.S.T.Road,

Kalina Santacruz(E),

Mumbai – 400 098                                                             … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.12.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.Y.Nagaraja, counsel for the complainant and   Sri. S. Adinarayana, counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Sri. M.Sathyavanthudu, counsel for the opposite party no.2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the tiles which he selected at the time of purchase and rectify the mistake of the 1^st opposite party, and to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant and to pay costs of the complaint.

        2. The brief facts of the case are:  the complainant has purchased Johnson Tiles from the opposite party no.1’s shop which was manufactured by the opposite party no.2 on 25.09.2015 for Rs.42,900/-. During the course of selection of the tiles, the complainant ordered Johnson Prm Astoria – SF tiles apart from other tiles and he paid the entire cash and obtains receipts from the opposite parties and same was packed and delivered by the opposite party’s workers. The complainant further submits that in the absence of him the workers of the opposite party laid the tiles in his house. Later, when the complainant was returned home, he noticed that the tiles which were laid or of different color and not the tiles selected by the complainant and also some of the tiles were damaged. When the complainant questioned the opposite party, they promised to replace the tiles in the place of defective tiles requested the complainant not to make an issue as they will lose the reputation in the public. Hence because of trust on the opposite parties, he did not make the complaint in writing as requested by them. The complainant further submits that he made a complaint through customer care No.7702207777 and also through phone to Mumbai on 04.11.2015 and register his complaint No.F846 and directed him to consult one Mr. Bhargava of Vijayawada. Despite his several representations the opposite parties have not responded and rectified the defects or replace the tiles.  Hence the complainant caused a legal notice on 25.12.2015 calling upon the opposite parties to rectify the tiles and also to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards costs of the material and expenses paid to the opposite parties. The said notice was returned from the opposite party no.1 and the second opposite party received the notice and gave reply notice with all false allegations on 18.03.2016.  Hence he filed the present complaint.

         3.  The opposite party no.1 came in to appearance and filed the written version and admitted,  the sale of tiles to the complainant and receipt of the legal notice issued by the complainant and rest of the allegations made in the complaint were denied.

                The opposite party no.1 further submitted that the complainant approached them and purchased the tiles on 29.05.2015 under invoice No.1931 for a total amount of Rs.42,900/- and the said invoice it clearly shows the serial numbers, particulars and quantity they supplied to the complainant. As per invoice the complainant received the articles and left his place. If at all there is any change in the articles, the complainant would have verified the same before using the material by comparing with the original invoice and boxes. But the complainant has not taken any steps to remove the seal and used it for flooring with his own labour. Once the material is used the opposite party is not liable for any defect in the articles. The opposite parties further submits that they never supplied any labour to the complainant for laying tiles. The opposite parties further submits that the complainant approached second time on 03.11.2015 for the purchase of the materials, that there is shortage of material and he purchased additional material for Rs.3650/- on credit basis and still he is in due of said payment. Hence in order to evade the payment the complainant files the present case with all false allegations. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            The opposite party no.2 filed the written version and stated that the instructions printed on all the cartons which consists of tiles and as per instructions only they have to lay the tiles and the complainant after his due satisfaction he purchased the tiles. If at all there is any variation in size and shade of the tiles he has to bring the notice of the opposite party before laying tiles. Hence after laying the tiles, the opposite party is not responsible. The opposite party further submits that their main aim is to give maximum satisfaction to the customers and they will take steps to educate the customer. If the customer is not satisfied with the tiles, they will replace the tiles to the customer’s satisfaction provided the tiles are not used. The complainant / customer has to be vigilant and follow the instructions before laying the tiles. But in the present case the complainant is admitted that he was present at the time of laying tiles it clearly shows that the complainant has not followed the instructions. Hence they are not liable for the sale. The second opposite party further submits that their service enginee was always touch with the complainant like with other customers by phone and in person. The loss alleged is only due to the negligence of the complainant and there is no negligence on their part. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no negligence on their part.

         4.  The complainant one Y.Papaiah Naidu, S/o. Yerraiah, filed his chief affidavit  and Ex.A1to A5 were marked on behalf of  him. The opposite party no.1 one Madala Sai Kumar, S/o. M. Ramalingeswara Rao filed  his chief affidavit and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of him and opposite party no.2 one A.Sasikanth, S/o. A.Phani filed his chief affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf him. Both the parties are filed written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         5.  Now the points for consideration are:             

             (i)  Whether the tiles supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant are        defective in nature and there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties?       

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

             (iii) To what Relief?

         6. Point No:-(i).  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the tiles by the complainant from the opposite party no.1 for Rs.42,900/- on 25.09.2015 under Ex:A1 because same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main case of the complainant is the above said tiles were laid in his house by the labour of the opposite party no.1 when he is away from home for his personal work. Later the complainant came home and noticed that the tiles which were laid are not the tiles which he selected and ordered in the shop and also the said tiles are of different colors and some of the tiles were damaged. The opposite parties promised him that they will replace the tiles with new tiles in the place of damaged tiles and also promised to rectify the mistake and requested the complainant not to make an issue in view of business reputation in the market. But the opposite parties failed to rectify their mistake even after several requests made by him.

         The complainant further submits that he made a complaint through customer care no.770227777 on 04.11.2015 and the customer care people directed the complainant to approach one Mr.Bhargava, Vijayawada to resolve his problem. But in spite of several requests they failed to rectify their mistake and replace the new tiles in the place of defective tiles. The opposite party no.1 contended that the complainant approached their shop and he himself selected the tiles and purchased on 25.09.2015.  The particulars of the articles given in the invoice clearly shows the serial numbers, particulars and quantity. As per the invoice only the complainants receive the articles and left his place. It at all there is any change in the articles the complainant would have verified the same before using by compare with the original invoice particulars and boxes. But still after removing the seal, the complainant shall show the empty boxes regarding the changes if any. But the complainant has not taken any steps to remove the seals and used tiles for flooring with his own labour. Once the articles are used the opposite party is not liable for any defect in those articles. And also the opposite party contended that they never provide any labour to the complainant. Hence the allegation made by the complainant, that the opposite party provides the labour are all false.

         The opposite party further contended that  the complainant approached again on 03.11.2015 for the purchase of the material by saying that there is shortage of material for Rs.3650/- on credit bases under Ex:B1. Still the complainant is due in payment of the above said sum. Hence there is no negligence on their part. After perusing the evidences placed on record by the complainant and the opposite party no.1 it is clearly shows that the complainant purchased the tiles from the opposite party no.1 under Ex:A1. But  as per contentions of the complainant it is stated that the tiles which were supplied by the opposite party no.1 is defective in nature and also some of the tiles were damaged and of different colors and the laying of the tiles are also not proper by the workmen which was laid in the absence of the complainant. But in order to prove his contention the complainant failed to place any documentary proof and also failed to file the photos of the defective tiles and also cartons supplied by the opposite party no.1 to ascertain the facts and also to compare the particulars of the tiles mentioned in the Ex:A1 with photos and the labels which were mentioned in the cartons. Hence in the absence of any corroborative evidence to substantiate his case, we cannot come to the conclusion that the opposite party supplied damaged tiles to the complainant and also there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party as they failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the complainant miserably failed to prove his case. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

         7. Point(ii):-   As already discussed in point no.1 that the complainant failed to prove his case. The question of entitlement would not arise. Hence accordingly this point is answered.

         8.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, and the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed, as such the complaint is to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 05^th day of January, 2017.

          Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                     

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Y. Papaiah Naidu   (Chief Affidavit filed).                      

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Madala Sai Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2:  A. Sasikanth           (Chief Affidavit filed).       

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Copy of the bill purchased given by the 1st opposite party to the complainant Dt: 25.09.2015 filed on behalf of the complainant. Tax Invoice No. TP/1939.
	Office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties by the complainant Dt: 25.12.2015 filed on behalf of the complainant.
	Acknowledgement card from opposite party No.2 filed on behalf of the complainant. Dt:29.12.2015.
	Returned cover and Ack. Due from opposite party No.1 Dt: 28.12.2015 filed on behalf of the complainant.
	Reply notice given by the opposite party No.2 Dt: 18.03.2016 filed on behalf of the complainant.

 

          EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Tax Invoice. Invoice No. TP/2330. Dt: 03.11.2015.

 

 

 

                                              Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                                                                // BY ORDER //

 

                                                                                           Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                                                                    Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant

                  2) The Opposite parties.