KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 102/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 15.12.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 624/2013 of CDRF, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Joy, Kannanaikkal House, Behind Orma Marbles, Thalore P.O., Thrissur-680 306.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.K. Sreedharan, Maramkalayil House, Appolo Street, Chelakkottukara, Kuriachira P.O., Thrissur-680 006.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
JUDGMENT
SRI.RANJIT. R: MEMBER
The opposite party has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.08.2017 in C.C. No. 624/2013 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (in short the District Forum). The District Forum by its order directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for laying tiles on the front yard of his building having a total area of 3,300 sq. ft. The cost of the tiles came to Rs. 1,60,000/- and the cost of sand, cement, metals etc. purchased for the purpose of laying the tiles came to Rs. 2,35,000/-. The opposite party had accompanied the complainant in selecting the above items. Accordingly the tiles were laid by the opposite party. However, when the complainant drove his car over them after the curing period of 10 days, the tiles over which the tyres of the vehicle passed got damaged and there was also breakage of tiles at the car porch area. No damage was caused to the tiles when he had driven his car to the other side where the tiles were laid. The damage to the tiles was caused due to the negligent way in which the tiles were laid by the opposite party. Even though repeated requests were made with the opposite party to cure the defects he did not care to carry out any rectification work. Therefore, complainant made a complaint with the Police Authorities and the Circle Inspector of Police directed the opposite party either to rectify the defects or to give the cost for rectification of the defects to the complainant. But the opposite party offered only a meagre amount of Rs. 60,000/- which the complainant refused. Hence he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the price of the tiles and other accessories. He has also claimed refund of laying charges paid to the opposite party. Thus he claimed a total sum of Rs. 3,51,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
3. Opposite party filed version denying the alleged contract between the parties. However, the opposite party admitted the entrustment of contract work to lay tiles on the front yard of the complainant’s premises. According to the opposite party, he being a well known worker of tiles, the complainant approached and asked him to lay the tiles for daily wages. He had laid the tiles with the help of 9 other experienced workers. He had given strict instruction to the complainant not to use motor vehicle for 10 days. But the complainant drove his car after two days which caused damage to the tiles. Opposite party has stated that he has not committed any negligence or deficiency in service in laying the tiles. It was due to the negligent act of the complainant that the tiles got damaged. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Both parties filed proof affidavits in lieu of chief examination. Exts. P1 and P2 and Ext. C1 commission report were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party did not adduce any documentary evidence.
5. The District Forum on the basis of the evidence let in by the parties and hearing both parties found that the damage caused to the tiles was due to the defective laying of tiles by the opposite party. The District Forum on the basis of this finding allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
7. The parties are referred to herein in accordance with their status in the complaint.
8. According to the learned counsel for opposite party, the District Forum has lost sight of the fact that the nature of this work is such that it would be completed only in stages. Necessary slope has to be provided to ensure drainage of water from the premises. The areas where work was carried out had to be watered after letting the plaster to dry to strengthen the plaster. Any heavy movement on tiles before they had set properly would result in tiles breaking. The commissioner has also reported that the tiles would break if vehicles were driven over them before the tiles had set. The District Forum has missed out this point altogether thereby resulting in an erroneous order. The commissioner has reported that the tiles at the entrance near the gate are broken. This had happened due to the negligence of the complainant in using heavy vehicle on the very next day of completion of the final stage of work. The tiles were broken at certain places more so at the entrance of the premises. The complainant had negligently driven his car over the tiles and it was due to his act the tiles had broken. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant would contend that there is no evidence that the complainant had negligently plied his vehicle over the tiles contrary to the instruction of the opposite party. The commissioner has categorically reported that the breakage of tiles is due to the negligent laying of tiles by the opposite party. The commissioner has not reported that the tiles have broken because of improper use by driving the vehicle over the tiles before the curing period. It has also to be noted that only tiles of certain portions have been broken and if at all the complainant had plied the vehicle before the curing period (not admitted) tiles of other similar portions would have been broken. In the absence of any such breakage of tiles in any other portion it is to be considered that the commission report is true and the breakage of tiles is as a result of the opposite party’s negligence by employing unskilled labourers. The commissioner had correctly pointed out that for replacement and for recreation of the tiles an amount of Rs. 1,27,050/- is needed. However, the District Forum has awarded only an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Heard both parties and perused the records. The specific case of the complainant is that the tiles laid on the front yard of his premises by the opposite party was in a defective manner and that is the reason for the breakage/damage caused to the tiles, when he drove the car over the tiles, after the curing period. To prove his case he has taken out an expert commission and the commissioner has filed Ext. C1 report. According to the opposite party the tiles were damaged only since the complainant had negligently driven his vehicle over the tiles before the tiles were set properly. Clear instructions were given to the complainant by the opposite party to ply the vehicle over the tiles only after 10 days of setting of the tiles. However, the complainant discarded the advice of the opposite party and drove heavy vehicle from the very next day of completion of final stage of the work. The tiles were damaged only due to the negligent act of the complainant.
11. It is an admitted fact that some tiles laid by the opposite party had broken. Now the only question to be considered is whether the tiles were broken due to improper laying of the tiles or the driving of the vehicle by the complainant contrary to the opposite party’s instruction. Both parties relied on the commission report to prove their respective case. No objection to the commission report was filed by either parties. True, as stated by the opposite party’s counsel the commissioner had noted that the tiles can be damaged if the vehicle is plied before setting of the tiles. But at the same time commissioner has specifically stated that there was no uniform slope at the portion where the tiles were broken and it was due to this reason the tiles got damaged. Further he has also categorically stated that the tiles were broken due to defective laying of the tiles. It is also to be noted that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent only certain portions of the tiles have been broken. If at all the complainant had plied the vehicle before the curing period other similar portions of the tiles would also have been broken. As per the commission report there is no breakage of tiles in any other portion. From the above facts it is clear that the tiles were broken only due to the bad quality of workmanship done by the opposite party. Further, there was water logging in the car porch also. The commissioner has stated that the defect of tiles can be rectified. He had calculated an amount of Rs. 1,27,050/- for repairing and rectifying the defect of the tiles. Considering the above facts and circumstances the District Forum has rightly found that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant.
12. We find no ground to interfere with the reasoned order of the District Forum. Hence the order of the District Forum is upheld.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to suffer their respective costs.
The respondent/complainant can get release of the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant, by filing proper application, to be adjusted towards the compensation and costs ordered by the District Forum. The respondent/complainant can also get release of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the appellant before the District Forum, on filing proper application to be adjusted towards the compensation and costs ordered by the District Forum.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
jb
