DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President

            : Smt. Vidya.A., Member

   : Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member

                   Date of filing: 29/11/2021                                                            

CC/220/2021

• Shahida

W/o Faisal   

Kunnukattil

Mukyankavu Po

Kulukallor (Via)

Pattambi Taluk              -          Complainants

Palakkad Dt.

• Muhammed  Faisal

S/ o Mohamed Master, Kunnirukattil

Kulukalloor, Mulayamkavu,

Ottappalam

Palakkad - 679 337

Represnted by Complainant No.1

(By Adv. Kiran G Raja)

               V/s

The proprietor,

Galaxy Marbles & Granites,

Thiroorkad, Angadipuram

Perinthalmanna, Malappuram Dt       -       Opposite Party

(By Adv. P Gopinath)

O R D E R

Prepared by Sri. Krishnankutty N K, MEMBER

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief

The complainants purchased 1387 sq.feet “RR white” granite from the opposite party for Rs 1,38,730/- for flooring in their house. After laying it was found that the colour was fading and the tiles were retaining moisture. According to the complainants it is due to the poor quality of the granites supplied by the opposite party and hence approached this Commission seeking a total compensation of Rs 400000/- towards the cost of granite tiles, laying expenses etc.

2).Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version. Their contention is that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of M/s Raj Rocks  Industries which supplied the granite to them. Further, the defects noticed by the complainant is due to the           improper laying and polishing of the granite tiles and moisture problem may be due to the location of the house.

3). Based on the pleadings of the complainant and the opposite party, the following issues were framed.

• Whether the complaint is bad  for non-joinder of necessary parties?
• Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the defects of the

  granite  as alleged  by the complainants.

• Whether the defects in the granite is due to the faulty methods followed   

while  laying it on the floor?

• Whether there is any Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practice on the

 part of opposite party?

• Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs claimed?
• Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

4. As per IA 597/22 an Advocate Commission was appointed by this Commission to ascertain the matter of dispute and an expert was appointed to assist the Advocate Commissioner. The Commission Report was submitted to this Commission on 05/07/22.

5. The complainants filed their proof affidavit and marked Ext A1 to A5 and C1 and C2 as evidence. Ext A1 is Bill for the purchase of granite, A2 is the slab measurement, A3 is the copy of the Bank Account passbook of the complainants, A4 is the loan transaction entry book and A5 is a series  of 7 photographs taken by the Advocate Commissioner during his visit to the site. Ext C1 is the report of the Expert Commissioner submitted along with the Advocate Commissioner’s Report, C2. The opposite party did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents from their side. They did not file any objection to the Reports of Advocate Commissioner or the Expert Commissioner. The counsel for opposite party on 10/10/2023 submitted a memo stating that the opposite party is not co-operating in conducting the case in spite of his registered letter. Hence the name of opposite party was called in open court and set was ex-parte.

Issue 1

6.  None of the documents submitted to this Commission reveal the name of  the party M/s Raj Rocks Industries mentioned in the version filed  by the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that they need not be made a party to the complaint as claimed by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties

Issues 2 & 3

As per the Report marked as C1,the Expert Commissioner has clearly mentioned that the granite tiles are of inferior quality and colour has faded/changed in many places. (Page No.2of work memo submitted by Advocate - Answers to Question No.1 to 3). He has also certified that the granite laying is done with good quality (Answer to Question No.4) and the property is situated in dry land and the granites laid in nearby houses is  not showing any  such defects.(Answers to Question No.5&6)

The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to counter the pleadings of the complainant or objected to the findings of the Commissioners. Hence the pleading of the complainants stand proved.

Issue 4 & 5

•  In the result, as the complainants have succeeded in proving a prima facie case against the opposite party and the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

• The opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the granite tiles

Rs  1,38,730/-along with interest @ 10% pa from 28/8/2021 till the      date of payment.

• The opposite party is directed to pay Rs 50,000/- towards the   

 expenses incurred as laying charges, polishing etc.

• The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs 50,000/- towards the

 mental agony and sufferings.

• Rs 25,000/- towards cost of litigation

The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.300/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment

  Pronounced in open court on this the 20^th day of October, 2023.

                Sd/-

                                                                                 Vinay Menon V

                                                                                  President   

 Sd/-

                                                                                      Krishnankutty N K

                                                                                             Member