Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/192/2016

R.Bhuvaneshwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Lakshmi Ceramics - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Seshachari and Others

07 Dec 2022

ORDER

                                        Date of Complaint Filed : 23.05.2016

                                        Date of Reservation      : 22.11.2022

                                        Date of Order               : 07.12.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,           : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.192/2016

WEDNESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

R.Bhuvaneswari,

D/o. C.G.Ravichandran,

No.1 and 2, Vishal Apartments,

Andavar Nagar,

Thiruverkdu,

Chennai – 600 077.                                                                                                                      ...   Complainant                

 

..Vs..

M/s. Lakshmi Ceramics,

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,

Mr. Nagarajan,

1^st Floor, Vairam’s Building,

No.112-Thiyyagaraya Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.                                                                                               ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. M.V. Seshachari

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

On perusal of records, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and strain caused by the Opposite Party by wrongful delivery of goods and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.15,502/- being the difference in costs paid by the Complainant and value of goods supplied by Opposite Party along with cost of Rs.15,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant states that she had visited Opposite Party's shop at T.Nagar during the month of January, 2016 and placed orders on 20.01.2016 for purchase of floor tiles and various other products to be used in the construction of her house site at Kovilambakkam, Chennai. The Complainant placed orders for purchase of tiles with gloss finish in SOM 800 X 800 M GVT Marbo Daino Beige Prm - 2T- DIG NANO of 100 quantities costing Rs.65,502/- among various products. On the date of order itself, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the Opposite Party by way of cheque. The Complainant is employed as a Branch Manager in City Union Bank at Thiruverkadu Branch. Therefore on account of her employment, she had instructed the opposite party to deliver the aforesaid products to the site address at Kovilambakkam. After a delay of more than 15 days, the Opposite Party had delivered the products to Complainant on 08.02.2016 at the site address. The Complainant had also paid the balance amount on 11.02.2016. The mason employed by the Complainant had received the tiles and started laying the same. After laying the tiles for the bathroom and other areas, floor tiles were laid on 18.02.2016. At that time to her utter shock and surprise, the Complainant found that instead of gloss finish type tiles ordered by her, the opposite party had wrongly sent matte finish type tiles. The tiles supplied by the Opposite Party are of different variety than that ordered by the Complainant and also it is of lesser value. The look and finish of glossy type tiles is completely different from the matte finish tiles supplied by the Opposite Party. The said fact came to the knowledge of her workers only after laying some of the tiles. The Complainant had immediately contacted the sales manager of Opposite Party one Mr.Arun Kumar and informed about the wrong delivery of tiles by the opposite party. The said sales manager Mr.Arun Kumar also after verification of records confirmed the wrong delivery of goods and assured the Complainant to make good the loss. Since the mason demanded additional money (labour charges) from Complainant for removal of partially laid tiles and to lay new tiles, having no other alternative Complainant had to proceed with the tiles supplied by the opposite party and completed laying of tiles. Due to the additional cost involved, the Complainant had to proceed with the tiles of inferior quality and different variety supplied by the Opposite Party. The acts of the opposite party in sending wrong products to Complainant is highly illegal and unlawful and amounts to deficiency in service and wrongful supply of goods. Due to the acts of opposite party, the Complainant had to suffer mental agony in not able to get the finish of her choice for her house. Further, the complainant came to know that the cost of matte finish tiles supplied to her is only worth Rs.50,000/- whereas the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.65,502/- to the opposite party towards the cost of gloss finish tiles. The Complainant further stated that the opposite party had assured the Complainant to compensate the loss suffered by her at the time of purchase of subsequent materials from the opposite party. On the basis of assurance given by the opposite party, Complainant had placed further orders to purchase products worth Rs.21,476/- and also paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance on 26.02.2016. However since there was a delay on the part of the opposite party in the supply of products, the Complainant had to cancel the same. From 26.02.2016, opposite party had been assuring Complainant to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/-. However, even after the cancellation of the order, opposite party illegally retained the said amount without refunding the same to Complainant. The said act of the opposite party is highly illegal and unlawful and amounts to unfair trade practice. The Complainant therefore issued a lawyer's notice dated 11.03.2016 demanding the Opposite Party to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- and also a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The Opposite Party had subsequently contacted the complainant and had refunded the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- on 21.03.2016. However, the Opposite party had not compensated for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of wrong supply of goods. The Complainant submits that on account of the wrongful delivery of goods and also delay in delivery of goods, the Complainant has been put to severe loss and hardship. The acts of the Opposite Party had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Hence the Complaint.

5.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. Inspite of sufficient notice served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party failed to appear before this commission and they have been called absent and set Ex-parte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The Complainant had purchased various construction materials from the Opposite party shop towards the construction of her house in Chennai. The Complainant placed orders for purchase of tiles costing Rs.65,502/- along with other various products by paying a sum of Rs.85,000/- as found in Ex.A-1 dated 08.02.2016. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party wrongly sent the matte finish type tiles instead of her purchase order for gloss finish type tiles. But no relevant evidence were enclosed to substantiate the contention of Complainant that the tiles ordered and the tiles supplied by the Opposite party differs , moreover Complainant did not enclose the proof of payment for the Invoice No.0876 i.e., Ex.A-1 & 2A.  Being the Complainant a Bank employee in City Union Bank the mason employed by complainant received the matte finish type tiles and started laying the same after a while only Complainant came to know that the tiles supplied by the Opposite Party were different. Immediately the Complainant contacted the Opposite party sales manager and informed about the wrong delivery of goods. As per the Complainant averments the said sales manager of Opposite Party assured to compensate the loss since the mason demanded additional labour charges for removal of partially laid tiles and to lay new tiles. Due to the additional cost involved the Complainant proceeded with the tiles of inferior quality and of different variety tiles supplied by the opposite party. No appropriate evidence was enclosed by the Complainant to validate the commitment given by the Opposite party for compensation towards the loss incurred. As per Ex.A-4 the Complainant further placed the orders worth of Rs.21,476/- out of which the complainant alleges that she paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance , since there was a delay in supplying the products complainant cancelled the order and asked the refund of Rs.10,000/- but the opposite party making delay in refunding the amount. Subsequently the Complainant issued a lawyer's notice dated 11.03.2016 demanding the Opposite Party to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- and also a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation as found in Ex.A-4. The Opposite Party had subsequently contacted the complainant and had refunded the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- on 21.03.2016 as found in Ex.A-6. However, the Complainant claims that the Opposite party had not compensated for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of wrong supply of goods. To substantiate the Complainant averments that the Opposite Party had supplied matte type tiles which is of inferior quality instead of the glossy type tile, and thereby committed deficiency of service is not supported by relevant proof, as the Invoice dated 08.02.2016, Ex.A-1, did not have particulars of glossy type tiles as alleged by the Complainant and that there is no relevant proof to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 7^th of December 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	08.02.2016	Invoice NO.C876 of the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	-	Photographs of tiles box supplied by the Opposite Party
Ex.A3	08.03.2016	E-mail from the Opposite Party
Ex.A4	11.03.2016	Lawyer’s Notice issued to the Complainant’s Advocate to the Opposite Party
Ex.A5	-	Retuned cover from the Opposite Party
Ex.A6	21.03.2016	Cash voucher for Rs.10,000/-

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

NIL

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT