DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 27/10/2021
CC/180/2021
Sadanandan.P.K.
S/o Nanu
Pullancheri Kandiyil House
Manaladi, Thenkara Post
Mannarkkad Thaluk
Palakkad District
(By Adv. P. M. Jayakumar) - Complainant
Vs
Sumesh
Proprietor
Granite World
Mundur Associates
Mundur, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv. Raghavan Ambadath)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant
The complaint ordered for 84 Wallex - Petro black flooring tiles from the opposite party paying Rs. 37,632/-. When the tiles were delivered at the residence of the complainant it was found that the tiles were of inferior quality. When contacted, the opposite party informed that the tiles supplied were the one he ordered and it will be ok once they are laid and washed properly, but that didn't happen. The opposite party refused to replace the tiles as per the request of the complainant.
Hence he approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.37,632/- towards the cost of tiles, Rs. 17,950/- towards the cost of M-sand and cement used for laying, Rs. 11,424/- towards labour charges for laying, Rs. 10,000/- towards the labour charges for removing the laid tiles and Rs. 25,000/-for mental agony suffered.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. He entered appearance and filed version refuting the allegations. His main contention is that the complainant has not impleaded the tile manufacturer as a party to the complaint, and hence bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The tiles were selected by the complainant from the show room and the same tiles were delivered at the site as requested by the complainant. Further, the complainant is due to pay some amount to the opposite party for which the opposite party was preparing to take legal action and that is the reason for the complaint.
3. Issues framed
- Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the defects in the tiles as alleged by him?
- Whether any balance amount is due from the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Reliefs as to cost & compensation.
4. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party filed proof affidavit or mark any document in support of their pleadings inspite of repeated opportunities given by this Commission. Hence the case was taken for orders based on merits.
5. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the complainant as well as opposite party, we are left with no material to examine the issues framed in detail and to decide the merits of the case. Hence, in the absence of any material evidence to prove a prima facie case against the opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is also not clear whether the parties have reached any settlement on the matter after filing this complaint.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
