IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015
Filed on 17.10.2013
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.319/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Sadique Basha. K.A. The Manager
Kadepparambil New Rajasthan Marbles
Kummanam P.O. S.N. Puram P.O., Kanjikkuzhy
Kottayam – 686 035 Cherthala – 688 582
(By Adv. R. Chandrasekharan Nair) (By Adv. Rajani.K.N.)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Considering the reputation and believing the advertisements of the opposite party, complainant purchased 1600 Sq ft of marble @ Rs.55/- amounting to Rs.88,000/- on 27.6.2013. But as per the bill No.580 dated 27.6.2013, it is wrongly recorded as 1510 Sq ft @ Rs.35/- amounting to Rs.60,513/-. The laying work was started on 1.7.2013. About 1000 Sq ft were laid it was noticed that most of the marble sheets are breaking even when placed in the stand for cutting. This was informed to the Salesman of the opposite party Mr.Sudheer over phone. At this time out of the 90 sheets 32 sheets were remaining. He instructed to use the balance sheets also and the damaged shall be replaced. But on further use also the sheets were breaking. Therefore he approached the show room and met the Manager and explained the matter in detail. But the Manager said that the broken ones cannot be compensated. Altogether 15 sheets were completely broken. The remaining 18 sheets out of the original purchase were conveyed back to the show room as instructed by the Manager in the presence of Mr. Sudheer the Salesman. Here also at the time of loading one sheet was broken and they accounted only 17 sheets and issued a slip for the receipt of 17 marble sheets. On 20.7.2013, the next day itself they prepared an estimate for the returned sheet accounting only 166 Sq ft correctly noting the rate at Rs.55/- amounting to Rs.9,295/- and refund Rs.9000/- after deducting tax amount Rs.295/-. Due to the supply of inferior quality of marble sheet the complainant suffered heavy financial loss on account of unloading charges, sand, cement and electricity. The action of the opposite party is unjustifiable, illegal and improper. Complainant was put into severe stress and strain due to the wrong behaviour of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that complainant purchased marble from the opposite party and the marble was delivered to him on 27.6.2013. For what he actually purchased from the shop the bill was properly issued as bill No.580/-. When the opposite party received the complaint regarding some marble slabs which supplied by them were broken immediately they changed those marble slabs. The allegation that he suffered financial loss and severe hardships is not correct. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Exts.A1 and A3 were marked subject to objection. Ext.A1(1) is the bill dated 27.6.2013, Ext.A1(2) is the bill dated 19.7.2013, Ext.A1(3) is the bill dated 20.7.2013, Ext.A2(1) is the bill No.580 dated 27.6.2013 issued by the opposite party, Ext.A2(2) is the bill dated 19.7.2013, and Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by Mr. Sudheer. Two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the bill No.580 dated 27.6.2013. Ext.B2 is the bill No.677 dated 19.7.2013. Expert Commissioner was examined as CW1. The Expert Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The Vat return filed along with sale details uploaded by the opposite party is produced and marked as Ext.X1.
4. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant has purchased marble from the opposite party on 27.6.2013. According to the complainant he has purchased 1600 Sq ft of marble @ Rs.55/- amounting to Rs.88,000/- along with other items. In order to prove that he has produced the estimate dated 27.6.2013. But the opposite party opposed in marking that document. At the same time complainant also produced another bill No.580 dated 27.6.2013. In the complaint and proof affidavit, he categorically stated that he purchased 1600 Sq ft of marbles @ Rs.55/- amounting to Rs.88,000/- along with other items and the total amount for the purchase as per the slip [Ext.A1(1)] named as estimate dated 27.6.2013 was Rs.1,22,560/- which was reduced to Rs.1,20,500/- and this amount was paid by him. He also stated that in the cash bill No.580 dated 27.6.2013 [Ext.A2(1)] and Ext.B1], it is wrongly recorded as 1510 Sq ft @ 35/- amounting to Rs.52,850./-. While examining the Salesman of the opposite party as PW3, he admitted his signature that put in the Ext.A1 estimate. According to the complainant 15 marble sheets were broken and when he complained about it, 17 marble sheets out of the original purchase were conveyed back to the show room as instructed by the Manager in the presence of Salesman named Sudheer on 19.7.2013 and thereafter on 20.7.2013 the opposite party prepared an estimate for the returned sheets accounting only 169 Sq ft @ Rs.55/-. In order to prove this allegation, complainant produced the estimate dated 20.7.2013 which marked as Ext.A1 series (3) and Ext.A3 the receipt issued by Sudheer. While examining the Salesman as PW3, he admitted that Ext.A3 was issued by him. Moreover to the question put by the counsel of the complainant to PW3, Ext.A1 series (3) return and he answered that, While cross examining the RW1 he also admitted that Ext.A1 series(3) is the estimate for the return of 17 sheets noting rate @Rs.55/- amounting to Rs.9,295/- and refunded Rs.9,000/- after deducting the tax amount of Rs.295/-. So it is clear from the deposition of RW1 and PW3 that opposite party has collected the price of marble @ Rs.55/- per Sq ft from the complainant. The opposite party admitted in the version that when they received the complaint regarding some marble slabs which supplied by them to the complainant, immediately they replaced those marble slabs. Even though they failed to produce the statement regarding the quantity that they supplied their admission itself proved that the marble slabs which they supplied to the complainant were low standard. Moreover the expert commissioner CW1 also stated that, So the contention of the opposite party that the marble slabs were having no defects as alleged by the complainant is not sustainable. The supply of low quality marble by the opposite party to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice. The financial loss and mental agony sustained by the complainant is to be compensated by the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the value of the 15 broken marble sheets @ Rs.55/- per Sq ft which amounts to Rs.8,195/- (Rupees eight thousand one hundred and eighty five only) to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony, and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sadique Basha K.A. (Witness)
PW2 - Sojimon. S. (Witness)
PW3 - Sudheer.D. (Witness)
Ext. A1(1) - Bill dated 27.6.2013*
Ext.A1(2) - Bill dated 19.7.2013* (Subject to objection)
Ext.A1(3) - Bill dated 20.7.2013*
Ext.A2 (1) - Bill No.580 dated 27.6.13
Ext.A2(2) - Bill No.678 dated 19.7.13
Ext.A3 - Receipt issued by Sudheer (Subject to objection)
CW1 - K.A. Sheriff (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Expert commission report
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - P.K. Sudheer – Manager (Wintess)
Ext.B1 - Bill No.580 dated 27.6.13
Ext.B2 - Bill No.678 dated 19.7.13
Ext.X1 - Vat return filed along with sale details uploaded by the opposite party
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: pr/-
Compared by:-
