By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, damages, pain etc caused to the Complainant due to the deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties with intent at the rate of 18% per annum to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of material and work already incurred by the Complainant with intent at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay Rs.9,011/- towards cost deficiency with 18% per annum with effect from 25.08.2011 and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. The Complainant's case in brief as follows:- The Complainant purchased 148 (2x2) Nako 6113 Super Glossy Vitrified Tiles at the rate of Rs.770/- per box (37 boxes) from the second Opposite Party on 25.08.2011. The Complainant's choice was for Ivory colour tiles. The 2nd Opposite Party delivered the tiles at the Complainant’s house site at Kavumannam on 24.08.2011. The Opposite Party No.2 collected Rs.26,640/- from the Complainant towards cost of the tiles. In September 2011 the Complainant's workers laid the tiles. There was a shortage of one tile. The Complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party and purchased one same type tile at the rate of Rs.150/- per tile. At the time of second purchase the Complainant noticed that it is different from the tiles already supplied. What is supplied already is Nako 6113 SG. The cost of 6113 SG super Glossy tile per box was only Rs.527.78. The 2nd Respondent after collecting consideration at the rate of Rs. 770/- per box supplied tiles worth only Rs.527.78 per box. What is shown at the time of 1st purchase was tiles made in China. What is supplied in the 2nd purchase is tiles made in PRC. So the 2nd Opposite Party cheated the Complainant and there is deficiency of service from their part. On Oral demand to settle the matter, the 2nd Opposite Party did not respond. Aggrieved by him, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. On perusal of complaint, affidavit, version of Opposite Parties, the Forum raised the following points to consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of
Opposite parties?
2. What order as to cost and compensation?
4. Point No.1:- The case of the complaint is that the Complainant purchased 148 (2x2) Nako 6113 Super Glossy Vitrified Tiles at the rate of Rs.770/- per box (37 boxes) from the 2nd Opposite Party. In shortage of one tiles again the Complainant purchased one tile of the same type at the rate of 180/- per tile. The earlier tile supplied was made in China. The 2nd purchased tile was made by PRC. The case of the Complainant is that the 2nd Opposite Party had done malpractice here. Another is that the price of earlier purchased tile was Rs.770/- per tiles, but the second purchased tiles price was Rs.527.78 per tile. That is the second malpractice done by 2nd Opposite Party. So there is cheating. To answer their the Opposite Parties filed version and stated that both the tiles are made in China itself. The Word PRC means “Peoples Republic of China”. So there is no deficiency in the name of production country. The answer to the other allegation is stated by the Opposite Parties are that there are 4 tiles in one box and there are 1.44 square meter tiles in one box. The price of one square meter tile is Rs.527.78/-. So the value of 1.44 square meter tiles is Rs.770/- ie 1.44x527.78=770/-. The Opposite Party No.2 collected only Rs.720/- per box from the Complainant. For 37 boxes per 720 per box will amount to Rs. 26,640/- only. So the Opposite Parties stated that absolutely there is no cheating or unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Parties. On perusal, the Forum found that the calculation given by the Opposite Parties are correct. The complaint is mistaken in attributing deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The tiles sold by the Opposite Parties are in different batches and models from time to time. There is no obligation on the part of Opposite Parties to supply the same type of tile after a long lapse of time unless and until there is agreement to that effect. The Opposite Parties are not responsible in this case to supply the same batch and type tile to the Complainant. Shortage of one tile is not due to the latches of Opposite Parties. There is no agreement between the Complainant and Opposite Parties in this regard. The Complainant must approach the Forum with clean hands. Here the Complainant might have filed this complaint by mistake in his calculation and decision. The Forum found that there is no bonafieds in the complaint and complainant is not entitled to get any remedy. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
4. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, The Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or cost of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2014.
Date of filing: 21.02.2012.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Kuttimuhammed @ Kunhimuhammed. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Quotation. dt:24.08.2011.
A2. Quotation. dt:28.09.2011
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
