KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.46/08

JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

Gopakumar

Kalpakalayam, Karikkal Muri,

Puthur, Kottarakkara.   

--  APPELLANT                       

 (By Adv.V,Bhuvanendran Nair)

                   Vs.

1.      The Proprietor,

A.V.Marbles & Granites

Near KSRTC Bus Depot,

Kaniyapuram.

2.      Polraj, Anu Nivas,                                     --  RESPONDENTS

Meenathucherry,

Venkulangara Nagar,

Kavanadu P.O, Kollam.

             (By Adv.Rajmohan, Amicus curiae ) 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in CC.345/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The complaint has been allowed directing the first opposite party to pay   Rs.20,000/- and the second opposite party to pay   Rs.5,000/-. 

          2. It is the case of the complainant that for the flooring of his  new double storied residential building, the second opposite party approached him and assured to identify high quality marble and that he shall lay the marble in a perfect manner and only after completion of laying   the complainant need pay the labour  cost at Rs.21 per sq.ft.  According to him, the first opposite party the seller of marble slabs came to his house along with the second opposite party and took the measurement and assured to supply high quality marble.    Believing the words of first and second opposite parties  he purchased Morwad White category of marble slabs at the rate of Rs.58 per sq.ft.  He purchased 2,850 sq.ft of marble slabs on 26.11.03  and a sum of Rs.1,65,300/-  was collected as the price and Rs.300/- was given discount and a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was paid.  Only 2 bills for total amount of Rs.97,299/- was given  representing that the same is in order to avoid tax problems.  After laying the marble when  grinding started  it was found that the slabs are breaking vertically and horizontally and portions of the slabs were getting separately.    The second opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.33,500/- towards cost of laying.  The second opposite party after laying was evading grinding.  Thereafter, the second opposite party did not come to attend the work.  The first opposite party informed and was convinced of the damages but did not do anything to rectify the same.  Thereafter, the complainant entrusted one Krishnamukar to   get  the grinding work done.  Again, it was found that the slabs are breaking etc.  The above person told the complainant that most of the marbles are of low quality.  The complainant has sought for  refund of Rs.1,65,000/- and the amount spend for purchasing materials like white cement for laying amounting to Rs.28100/- and Rs.33,500 paid towards labour charges to the second opposite party and also compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

          3. Opposite parties have filed a joint version   stating that the complainant had inspected the marble and hence purchased them satisfying as to the quality of the marble.  He has chosen comparatively  inferior   quality marble.  The opposite party charged only  at the rate of Rs.30 per sq.ft.  He altogether purchased 3000 sq.ft. of marble.  But the opposite party charged only for 2850 sq.ft.  It was the second opposite party who purchased sand and white cement.  He had also purchased teak wood worth Rs.11,130/-  and  incurred a sum of Rs.11,500/-   for constructing the compound wall and installing the gate.  None of the above amounts were paid by the complainant to the second opposite party.  In fact, the complainant selected very inferior quality of marble.  It is denied that the complainant paid Rs.1,65,000/- towards cost of the marble.  It is alleged that at the time, when the grinding works started, the complainant told that he has got some financial difficulties and wanted to stop the work.  Thereafter, it was found that he engaged another person for the work.  The opposite parties have denied the allegations altogether.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, and Exts. P1 series and P2.

          5. There is no representation for the respondents/opposite parties.  An Advocate has been appointed as amicus curiae to present the case of respondents.

          6. The Forum allowed only Rs.20,000/- as compensation to be paid by the first opposite party for the low quality marble supplied and directed to the second opposite party to pay cost of Rs.5000/-.  The opposite parties did not adduce  any evidence.  Ext.P2 is the report of the expert commissioner, who is an Asst. Engineer of PWD (Building).  He has reported that  the marble slabs are the variety Morwad  White.  The slabs purchased are of low quality from the above variety.  The slabs are big in size containing lines that is likely to result in breakage.  Hence, the slabs should be cut into  small  pieces of 16 x 16 cm.  As the slabs were laid as such  the same happened to break when machine polishing started.   The market rate for the above marble would be only about Rs.35 to 40.    The marble laid was not having proper seating  and the same is also reason to develop cracks.  The total amount  of marble supplied including 10% of wastage  will work out 2765.54 sq.ft.  For laying and polishing, the cost  will be at the rate of Rs.20 per sq.ft.  It was found that the work is incomplete.  It was found that motor has been used only once.    For the above extent of work, the labour cost can be assessed Rs.10 per sq.ft.  The labour cost so assessed is Rs.1,30281.81.  He has also stated that the complainant has  incurred cost of white cement and  current charges amounting to Rs.20,000/-. The Commissioner  has also reported that once polishing is completed cracks would be more manifest and the same would affect the appearance of the premises.

          7.   Evidently in view of the report of the expert commissioner, we find that the compensation  awarded is quite in adequate.  The opposite parties ought to have  advised the complainant as to the quality of the marble and that the same cannot be laid in large pieces.  Evidently, the complainant  was taken for a ride by the opposite parties.  The evidence of PW1 has not been contradicted.  The opposite parties did not enter the witness box.  There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the expert commissioner.  There is no evidence   to the effect that the complainant has dismantled the laid marble.  In the circumstances, we are inclined to enhance the amount of compensation to be paid by the first opposite party to Rs.60,000/-.  The second opposite party is also liable to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties will pay a sum of Rs.5,000 each towards costs to the complainant.  The complainant will also be entitled for interest at 8% per annum on the amount of compensation from 2.9.05, the date of complaint.  The appeal is allowed as above.

          The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU      --  PRESIDENT