DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 01.04.2023.
CC/90/2023
Noufal C.H, S/o.Abdu Rahman, - Complainant
Chungath (H), Angadi PO,
Palakkad Dist.
Rep. by power of attorney holder
Mr.Savad.O.K, S/o.Moidheenkutty O.K.,
Ottum Kandathil,
Paruthoor PO, Karambathoor,
Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad Dist, Kerala.
(By Adv.Rajesh V)
VS
1. Managing Partner, Marble Land, -Opposite Parties
Manghattil Trade Links Pvt. Ltd.,
Kuttipuram Road, Changaramkulam.
2. Authorized Signatory,
Somany Ceramics Ltd,
F 34 Sector 6, Noida-201 301,
Utter Pradesh, India.
(Both OPs by Adv.M/s. M.Youseph and Kamesh)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY. N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased 17 boxes of Somany Milton Bianco 800*800 premium tiles manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party paying Rs.96,240/- on 17.08.2019. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties had guaranteed about the quality and durability of tiles. The grievance of the complainant is that the colour of the tiles faded by which the entire show of the building is lost. The complainant had spent more than Rs.3 lakhs for the work including the material cost and the labour. On 09.02.2022 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties, but they did not respond. Hence, this complaint is filed seeking replacement of tiles or compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
2. The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions;
a) The complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action took place about three years and seven months back.
b) The laying of tiles have not been done as per the instructions printed on the boxes containing tiles.
c) The 1st opposite party deputed their representative to the premises of the complainant and explained in detail the reason for fading when the issue was brought to their notice and hence, there was no negligence on their part.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication;
1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2) Whether the tiles have faded its colour?
3) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5) Reliefs as to cost/compensation ?
4. The case was referred for settlement in the adalats held on 25.08.2023 and 29.09.2023 but no settlement could be reached.
5. Inspite of repeated opportunities given, the complainant failed to file proof affidavit or adduce any documentary evidence in support of his pleadings. The opposite party also did not file proof affidavit and mark any documents.
6. As per Section 38(6) of CP Act, 2019, “Every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of proof affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record.” Hence in the absence of proof affidavit and documentary evidence from both the parties this Commission is not in position to examine the merits of this case.
8. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Both the parties have to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY. N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: NIL
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: NIL
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: 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.
