Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/15/2018

Dr.P.Umamaheshwarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Rajkumar Granites, - Opp.Party(s)

P.s. Satynarayana Roa

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03/02/2018

DISPOSED      ON:21/12/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:15/2018

 

DATED: 21st DECEMBER 2018

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Dr. P. Umamaheshwarappa, S/o Late Puttanaik, Age: 43 Years, Sri SevalalSadana, Behind Market Yard, Opp: Urdu School, Vedavathi Nagar, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Sri.P. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Proprietor, Rajakumar Granites, Mysore Road, Hiriyur town, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.L. Madhusudhan, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to refund Rs.2,43,340/-, Rs.50,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs. 

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he has purchased scenery running tiles, water mixture taps and kitchen sink items worth Rs.73,340/- from OP by paying cash on 16.07.2015.  At that time, the OP has not given 35% discount on the said items.  The complainant has requested again and again and the OP has not supplied the scenery tiles to the normal rates and taken full amount ie., more than the MRP price.  After verification and also after enquiry in the market, the complainant came to know that, the OP has collected double the amount on MRP.  It is further submitted that, the materials supplied by the OP is very low quality and not genuine.  The water mixture sink taps are leakage and kitchen sink become rusting, blockish and tiles are discolouring and cracking as they are low standard items.     It is further submitted that, to avoid tax, the OP has not given any original bill/receipts containing TIN or VAT numbers.  The OP has given bills only on white paper.  The complainant approached the OP several times and requested to replace the tiles which was supplied by it, at the beginning the OP has agreed to replace the tiles, but later, refused to do so.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to OP on 25.11.2017 seeking refund of the amount, but the OP has not taken any action to refund the same, which is a deficiency of service.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 27.11.2017 when the OP has acknowledged the notice, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint. 

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate and filed version.  It is denied that, the complainant has purchased scenery tiles, water mixture taps and kitchen sink items by paying Rs.73,340/- on 30.06.2015 and 16.07.2015.  It is false to state that, the OP has not given 35% discount on the purchased item in spite of given an assurance and further fails to supply the scenery tiles and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is further false to state that, the OP has supplied poor quality and substandard materials to the complainant and the same developed leakage, rusting, blockish and discoloured and the same is put to strict proof of the same.  The allegations made in para 4 of the complaint that, the OP did not issue original bills having TIN and VAT numbers to avoid Tax and the same is put to strict proof of the same and the OP has given bills on white paper is false.  It is false to state that, the OP has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, because of supply of low quality materials to the complainant.  It is put to strict proof of the fact that, the complainant has approached the OP and requested to replace the tiles which were supplied by the OP and the OP agreed to replace the defective materials supplied.    The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party such as manufacturer of the tiles for the reason this OP is the dealer of tiles of various companies.  The alleged cause of action is false and further the complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency of service and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked. On behalf of OPs, one Sri. JayanthiLal. D, the Proprietor of OP has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and nodocuments have been got marked.  

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is the case of the complainant that, he has purchased the above said materials from OP by paying a sum of Rs.73,340/- by paying cash.  It is the contention of the complainant that the OP has given assurance that, on the purchased material 35% discount will be given, but failed to do so.  The complainant has requested again and again and the OP has not supplied the scenery tiles to the normal rates but, taken full amount ie., more than the MRP price.  After verification and also after enquiry in the market, the complainant came to know that, the OP has collected double the amount on MRP.  The materials supplied by the OP is very low quality and not genuine.  The water mixture sink taps are leakage and kitchen sink become rusting, blockish and tiles are dis-colouring and cracking as they are low standard items.  The complainant approached the OP several times and requested to replace the tiles which was supplied by it, at the beginning the OP has agreed to replace the tiles, but later, refused to do so.     

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents Ex.A-1 to 4.  The bills produced by the complainant are on the white papers, the same is not sustainable under law.   It is the contention of the complainant that, after purchasing the materials from OP, the complainant has laid the same in his newly constructed house.  But, within three to four months of laying the same, the colour of the tiles was shaded and breaking, water mixture sink taps are leaking, kitchen sink became rusting, blockish and tiles are discolouring as they are low standard items.  When the complainant has orally intimated to the OP with regard to the defects in the material, by that time, the OP promised the complainant to solve the problems, but failed to fulfil its promise, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  To prove his case, the complainant has not produced any documents before this Forum.  He has produced only white paper receipt i.e, Ex.A-3, that has no specific name of the seller and signature of the seller or the address of the seller.  Therefore, the Ex.A-3 is not believable one.  On the basis of this document only, this forum cannot come to the conclusion that, the OP has supplied materials to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant fails to prove his case that, the OP has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.          

 

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 21/12/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. JayanthiLal, Proprietor of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 25.11.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Postal receipt and acknowledgement
03	Ex-A-3 & 4:-	Bills on white papers

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-NIL-

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**