BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st MARCH 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 478/2014
(Admitted on 06.12.2014)
Dr. Vishnu Prasanna K.N.
6-88/10, Swastik,
Near Canara Bank,
Old Post Office Road,
Suratkal, Mangalore 575014.
Cell 9449 568968. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: In person)
VERSUS
Sri Lalith Vyas,
Managing Director,
M/s Metro Marbles and Granites,
3-80/1, Dinesh Hebbar Compound,
NH 66, Kulai,
Mangalore 575 019. ……OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods sold by the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that he had purchased granite slabs for the household purpose to use them as table tope from the Opposite Party on 15.09.2014. It is stated that at the time of ordering good quality slabs of the selected design were not available with the Opposite Party and hence Opposite Party promised to arrange very good quality slabs by procuring from elsewhere.
It is stated that, the Opposite Party agreed to arrange the slabs and the complainant had paid Rs. 10,000/-as advance on 15.09.2014. It is stated that the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 17,715/- on the same day and assured to send the goods through his delivery arrangements and the complainant further paid Rs. 1,050/- towards transportation, later when to goods were delivered the Opposite Party did not issue bill. But after the receipt of slabs, some of the slabs were inferior quality with unusual patches, thickness of slabs were also not the same in all the pieces. Many slabs were damaged, broken, cracked, fractured and one piece is joined with glue edges were serrated, worked very carelessly having very poor workmanship with many scratches. Considering the above issues, complainant has complained to the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party not spoken to the complainant with dignity. Finally after so money calls of persuasion Opposite Party agreed and visited the place with 3 of his employees but the complainant demanded for replacement of the damaged slabs. But the Opposite Party not accepted. It is contended that the goods sold by the Opposite Party are defective. Hence the above complainant filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to refund the cost of the goods along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite party by R.P.A.D. The Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version contended that this Opposite Party is only the dealer of the marbles and granites manufactured by M/s Fair Deal. It is further stated that the work of molding and trimming work to make the table top is done by one Mr. Santosh, therefore M/s Fair Deal and Mr. Santhosh are the necessary party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is bad for miss-joinder and non –joinder of necessary party.
It is further stated that the complainant after inspecting each and every slabs available in the showroom and requested the Opposite Party to make the table lips of different size. The Opposite Party only the dealer. On request of the complainant Opposite Party arranged Mr Santosh to do the table tops. This Opposite Party had delivered the grantees to Mr. Santhosh and the Opposite Party nowhere responsible for any defects and sought for dismissal of complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Dr. Vishnu Prasanna K.N. (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C6. One Lalith Vyas (RW-1) of Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. EX-R-1 and R-2 were marked for the Opposite Party.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant is bad for miss-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties?
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party committed deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant proves that the goods sold by Opposite Party is defective?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answered the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
Reasons
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) TO (iv) : The facts which are not in dispute is that the complainant purchased granite slabs of different sizes with the Opposite Party by paying consideration of Rs. 27,115/- on 15.01.2014. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Party is the dealer and one M/s Fair deal is the manufacture of the above goods. Further it is admitted by both the parties that on request of the complainant one Mr. Santhosh has been appointed to do the workmanship of the granite in this case.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this court is that complainant contended that the granite sold by the Opposite Party are defective and it cannot be made use for the purpose for which he bought.
The Opposite Party per contra contended that he is only the dealer not the manufacturer of the marable. The manufacture only is responsible and not the dealer.
Heard, perused entire records, wherein, we find that it is a case of defect in granite slabs but the complainant not made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings. In a case of defect in goods it is mandate on the part of the complainant to make manufacturer as party to the proceedings. Because manufacturer of the granite slabs are responsible for defects if any. But in this case the manufacturer is not made as a party to the proceedings.
Apart from the above, we also noted that one Mr Santosh who did the workmanship of the granite slab also necessary party to the proceedings because it is very important to make them as parties to the proceedings as their participation in the proceedings is plays an important role to adjudicate the matter in controversy.
By considering the above aspect we viewed that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the complainant appeared in person. It is not fair to dismiss the complaint instead of that the complainant hereby given liberty to file fresh complaint. Therefore, complaint is closed with a liberty to file fresh complaint. There is no order as to cost.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is closed with liberty to file fresh complaint. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Dr. Vishnu Prasanna K.N.–Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : Copy of the Affidavit.
Ex. C2 : Copy of the bill given by the other party.
Ex. C3 : Copy of the notice to the other party.
Ex. C4 : Acknowledgment the vendor
Ex. C5 : Complaint contents had to commercial
taxes department.
Ex. C6: Acknowledgment to commercial taxes department.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW-1 : Sri Lalitha Vyas,– Opposite party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex. R1 : 14.10.2014 Cash/credit bill No. 253
for Rs. 12,598/-.
Ex. R2 : 09.03.1999 Rules and Regulation of Marbles
and Granites Association.
Dated: 31.03.2016. PRESIDENT
