SMT.K.G.BENNA, MEMBER
The gist of the complaint is that, the complainant purchased the granite slabs and granite tiles with other items for a total sum of Rs.12,673/- from the shop of opposite party. The green granites and black granites delivered by the opposite party at the work site of the complainant were below the purchased quantity. Eventhough opposite party agreed to issue the balance items on the next day itself, opposite party failed to do so. The acts of opposite party caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant and hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite party filed a detailed version admitting the purchase of granite slabs and tiles from the shop of opposite party on 8-7-2011 by the complainant. According to opposite party, at the time of loading the goods the complainant had checked and satisfied with the items. There was no loss of quantity as averred in the complaint. The complainant never approached opposite party with the complainant of deficiency in the delivered goods. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party with false allegations and claims for which opposite party had sent a detailed reply. There is no deficiency in service and hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 to A3 marked. Complainant is cross-examined by the counsel for opposite party. Opposite party’s witness is examined as DW1 & DW2. Both sides heard and documents perused. The points arises for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is shortage in delivery of granite slabs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
4. Points Nos 1 & 2. Complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts A1 to A3 on his side.
In this case complainant had purchased Granite slabs and granite tiles from opposite party’s shop on 8-7-2011 for a total sum of Rs.12,673/-. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill. But when the granites are delivered in the work site, it is below the purchased quantity. Instead of the 20 pieces of Green granite pieces of (24 x 18 x 20) the opposite party had delivered only 16 pieces of the same and also instead of 8 pieces of black granite pieces of (24 x 12 x 8) the opposite party had delivered only 5 pieces of the same at work site. Complainant had informed the above matter to opposite party on the very same day and opposite party had agreed to issue the balance items on the very next day itself. According to the next day complainant approached opposite party with a hired Jeep but opposite party avoide the complainant without issuing the balance. The complainant sent a lawyer notice. Ext.A2 demanding compensation of Rs.20,000/- from opposite party for the shortage of tiles delivered for which opposite party sent a reply notice. Ext.A3 stating that there is no loss of quantity as averred in Ext.A2 thus this complaint is filed by the complainant. Opposite party examined two witness on their side but DW 1 & 2 are employees of opposite party. DW1 is their Lorry driver and DW2 is the Managing Partner of opposite party, they cannot be treated as independent witness as there is a master servant relation between opposite party and DW1 and DW2.
5. The allegations leveled against the opposite party in complaint and affidavit is that there is shortage in supplied granite pieces than the purchased. An expert commission report can establish before the Forum, whether the allegations is true. But unfortunately no such attempts were taken considering the materials on record. We are of the view that there may be shortage. But while coming to relief and cost, that cannot be allowed on the basis of assumptions.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 8-7-11 Estimate/Quotation.
A2. 8-8-11 copy of lawyer notice.
A3. Reply notice.
PW1. E.N. Haridas.
DW1. Varijakshan.
DW2. S.Sainadhan.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
