CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.114/11
Monday the 31st day of October,2011
Petitioner : Rajanish,
Raj Bhavan,
Pallickachira PO, Paippadu,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K. Madhavan Pilla)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Lorenzo Tiles, 8-A,
National High Way,
Opp.Omkar Petrolium
PB No.411,Lalpar, Morbi Rep.by its
Managing Director.
2) Marketing Office and Depot,
Lorenzo Tiles, R.K. Pillai Road,
CC XII/970A, Karuvelipady
Cochin.Rep.by its Marketing Manager.
3) Kovoor Agencies,
Kizhakkenmuthoor, Kattappuzha PO
Thiruvalla, Paippadu Branch.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant presented on 9-8-11 is as follows.
He had purchased vertified Teracotta Lorenzo Tiles on 9-12-09 for Rs.46,648/- as per vide bill No.1211 and 23-12-09 for Rs.37,619/- vide bill No.1270 from the 3rd opposite party. The complainant layed the tiles in his residence with utmost care and caution and start residing there from 25-5-10. Immediately after the laying it is seen that the tiles, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, which is layed in the house of the petitioner became fade and found white marks on the tiles. The tiles became useless and seen very ugly. According to petitioner this is happened only due to poor manufacturing quality of tiles. The complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony due to the poor quality of the tiles. The defects happened to the tiles are not curable and it is to be replaced. The replacement of the tiles will also cause heavy loss. The complainant is entitled to get damages of Rs.1,91,607/-. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite party. They did not properly contest the allegations levelled against them. Even if sufficient opportunities were given to the opposite parties they remain absent. Hence the opposite parties set expartee.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A6.
Heard complainant. We have gone through the complaint, documents and evidence. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties even after accepting the notice from this forum. Hence we have no reasons to dis-beleive the case of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.84,267/- to the complainant as the price of the tiles. (2) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.5000/- as costs of these proceedings. If the order is not complied as directed within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant
Ext.A1-is the bill dtd 9/12/09
Ext.A2-is the bill dtd 23-12-09
Ext.A3-is the copy of lawyers notice dtd 31-12-09
Ext.A4-is the postal A/D card dtd 7/8/10
Ext.A5-is the postal A/D card dtd 5-8-10
Ext.A6-is lawyer’s notice(returned unclaimed)issued to 3rd opposite party
By Order,
