The case is taken up for exparte judgment. The complainant of the complainant is that on 2014 November, Op no 1 proposed to point the exterior wall of the house building of the complainant for a total amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Only)including labour and repair charges. Op no 1 provided a computer generated graphically edited picture showing the look of the house building of the complainant. After it gets pointed. The complainant accepted the proposal of the OP no and the exterior walls of the house building of the complainant were pointed by the labours and supplied materials and points by the Ops.
OP no.3 is the manufacture of the points i.e. snowcem points Pvt. Ltd and OP no 2 is the seller of the points of OP no.3 i.e. M/s A.G enterprise,siiguri-734001.
OP no 1 complated the point work and received Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant. Within 3(three) months of completion of the point work, red ants started to eat the point and point started to fade and has become white.
The complainant informed the matter to the Ops but his problem does not slove.
The complainant filed list of documents:-
- Computer generated graphically edited picture of Op. No.1.
- Cash memos Of Op no 2
- Memo no. 004 dated 27.12.2014
- Memo no. 005 dated 09.01.2015
- Memo no. 014 dated 15.01.2016
- Photographer of the point used.
- Photographs showing point eaten by red ants.
- Legal notice dated 14.08.2015
- Reply letter dated 25.08.2015 of the Op no.3
The complainant led evidence and filed w/n/a Op filed w/v.
Op no 3 the manufacture of the paint i.e. snowcerm
Paints, sent letter dated 25.08.2015 in reference of letter dated 14.08.2015 where Op no 3 speaks that “ your client has applied…. There was no complaint for first three months….. is advised to make arrangement for control of red ants. The documents of the complainant does not speak about the quality of the pain, whether was it inferior quality or superior quality. There is no expert opinion on the point of the quality of the said point used by the complainant from the Ops.
Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is unable to prove his case successfully.
Accordingly it is,
Ordered
That the consumer case no. 96/s/2015 be and the same is dismissed for default.
