IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 31st day of May, 2014
Filed on 02.07.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No. 201/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.P.S.Saseendran The Proprietor
Kettezhathu House Sree Krishna Tile Works
Pattanakkad P.O. Chengamanadu P.O.
Cherthala Ernakulam District
(By Adv.B.Somanadha Kurup) (By Adv.T.K.Sujith)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The facts of the case are as follows:
During December 2011 complainant purchased 9000 decorative tiles with 250 ridges for the purpose of laying on the roof of the complainant’s newly constructed building from the opposite party and the decorative tiles and ridges after making payment of Rs.96,040/- in cash through son of the complainant Vyas Saseendran and the opposite party had supplied the same to the complainant’s place. Complainant had expended 1,04,000/- as labour charges for laying the above tiles. After 6 months, it is found that the tiles are of poor quality and not kilned properly and had began to dissolve in rain water and also began dusting in sun light. The matter was immediately informed the opposite party and after proper inspection by their men, supplied another 9000 tiles and 250 ridges for replacing the previous tiles which being found fully useless. The new tiles were supplied on the condition that the previous tiles are to be returned to the opposite party after replacement.
2. The complainant is very much agonized that he had to pay laying charges of the newly supplied tiles for replacing the tiles supplied earlier. Due to the supply of defective goods by the opposite party, complainant had to suffer huge amount of Rs.1,04,000/- for placing the new tiles at the roof after removing the previous tiles already placed. Therefore the loss of labour charges to be paid for removing and replacing decorative tiles supplied by the opposite party is also payable by them as the replacement was necessitated due to the supply of defective goods by the opposite party. Even after repeated demands by the complainant, the opposite party was keeping the deaf ear and that caused to issue lawyer’s notice demanding the cost of replacement. The act of the opposite party amounts to defect and deficiency in service. On receipt of a notice instead of settling the demands of the complainant, the opposite party caused to issue a reply notice with false contention. Hence the complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
- The opposite party may be directed to replace the defective tiles at their own men and cost or to pay the complainant Rs,1,04.000/- for labour charges for replacing the tiles.
- Opposite party also may be directed to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and humiliation.
- Cost of the proceedings also may be allowed to recover from the opposite party.
3. In spite of notice served on the opposite party on the complaint, they did not file any version. Hence the opposite party was set ex parte. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with 2 documents and the same are marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2. Ext.A1 is the legal notice issued against the opposite party dtd. 06.02.2013. Ext.A2 is the reply notice dtd. 19.02.2013.
4. The complainant purchased 9000 decorating tiles along with 250 ridges from the opposite party. The complainant had spent Rs.1,04,000/- as labour charges for laying the tiles. According to the complainant, after 6 months, it was found that the tiles are of poor quality and also began dusting in sunlight. When the matter was informed to the opposite party, they supplied another 9000 tiles and 250 ridges for replacing the previous tiles. Since the replacement was necessitated due to the supply of defective goods by the opposite party, the addition of labour charges incurred by the complainant for removing and replacing the tiles is liable to be paid by the opposite party.
5. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his allegations remains unchallenged. The opposite party had enough time to contest the case, but they remained ex parte.
6. It is to be noted that the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party called upon them to send their skilled men for laying the tiles at their cost or to pay Rs. 1,04,000/- for labour charges of laying the tiles by his worker before filing the complaint. Ext.A2 evidenced the same. Ext.A3 is the reply notice sent by the opposite party. It shows that the opposite party is admitting the transaction. But, according to them, an amount of Rs.20,160/- was sufficient to lay 3600 sq. ft. tiles. In the instant case, they failed to contest the case. Ext.A3 is receipt issued by the contractor. It shows that the complainant had spent Rs.1,04,000/- towards expenses for laying previous tiles. It is clear from the evidence on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to replace the defective tiles with the newly supplied tiles by employing their workers at their cost, within one month on receipt of this order. Failing which the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,04,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and cost. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May, 2014.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Legal notice issued against the opposite party dtd. 06.02.2013.
Ext.A2 - Reply notice dtd. 19.02.2013.
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
//True Copy//
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by : Pg/-
Compd by:
