KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 142/2020

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 500/2015 of CDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Managing Director, Sunil Steels Melamparambil (a unit of Kohinoor Floors), N.H. Byepass, Adjacent to Kannadikadavu-Thykkoodam Bridge, Maradu, Kochi-4.

                             (By Advs. M/s Menon & Pai)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Raju George, Valiyaveettil House, Parapillil Road, Thiruvamkulam-682 305, Ernakulam.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 500/2015 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (District Forum for short).  The respondent is the complainant. 

2.  Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:  The complainant approached the opposite party, who is dealing with flooring materials and steel, in order to purchase the marble slabs for the use of his kitchen. Sales personnel of the opposite party shop showed certain polished marble slabs and assured the complainant that those marble slabs were brought from Italy and informed to the complainant that the marble slab was scratch proof and colour proof. The complainant purchased two such polished marble slabs measuring at 8.180 sq.mtr. on 24.02.2014 on payment of Rs.45,000/- towards its price. The slabs were fixed on the two kitchen counters of his house. However, within a few weeks the complainant noticed the formation of thin cracks over the slab and the colour was found fading. The length of the crack continued to increase on the surface of the tile. The matter was brought into the notice of the opposite party, who sent their representative for inspection. However, nothing was done to redress the grievances of the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party put forward an allegation that the crack was due to the vacuum formation between the floor and the slab. The materials supplied by the opposite party to the complainant was of inferior quality and the opposite party had made false representation regarding the quality of the product sold to the complainant and thereby committed unfair trade practice. The complainant had to spend Rs.20,000/- towards laying charges and Rs.1 lakh for removing the defective slabs and to relay new slabs. The complainant had spent Rs.1,65,000/- for the additional work done and the opposite party has to compensate the complainant.

3.  The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version.  In the version opposite party stated that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no instance of unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. The complainant had purchased Foshan marbles from the opposite party. Those marbles were imported from China and not from Italy as submitted by the complainant. The products were manufactured from “Top Import and Export Trading Company Limited” China. No assurance regarding the quality of the marble was provided by the sales girls of the opposite party. The opposite party is not the manufacturer of the marbles purchased by the complainant. It is not correct to say that there are cracks and colour fading on the marble slabs. The marble slabs were laid not by the opposite party, but by some third party who did not install it properly. The bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant contained a statement that the liability of the opposite party ceases after the goods leave the stock yard of the opposite party and variation in colour, texture and design are the natural characteristics in the stone and the opposite party cannot be held liable for the same. The opposite party did not make any allegation that the cracks had developed due to the formation of vacuum between the floor and the slab. If the slabs are not properly installed it is likely to have the cracks and not due to any defect in the quality. The expenses claimed by the complainant for laying and relaying of the marbles are inflated in order to mislead the Forum by suppressing the material facts. The complaint was therefore sought to be dismissed.

4.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked.  The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext. B1 was marked.  The commissioner was examined as PW2 and marked the commission report as Ext. C1.

5.  The complainant alleged that he had purchased the marble slabs covered by Ext. A1 only on the belief and assurances given orally by the sales staff and the statement written in Ext. A1 that it was originally a polished marble slab.  Such a misleading fact in Ext. A1 invoice amounts to unfair trade practice.  The opposite party did not take any endeavour to substantiate their contention that the product suffered crack due to the fact that it was improperly laid at the kitchen of the complainant through a third party. 

6.  PW2 commissioner was examined by the complainant in order to prove that there were defects in the product purchased by the complainant.  The commissioner had categorically stated that the product supplied to the complainant by the opposite party is known as “Nano Glass Marble” which is an artificial marble slab white in colour with thickness of 20 mm.  In the report he stated that the artificial marble slabs are far inferior in quality than ordinary granite slab.  The opposite party failed to prove their contentions.  The complainant in this case succeeded to prove his complaint with ample evidence.  So the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.   The opposite party is further directed to refund Rs. 45,000/- , the purchase value of the product as per Ext. A1 and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings.  Against this order the opposite party has filed this appeal. 

7.  The appellant argued that the District Forum ought to have seen that the opposite party is not the manufacturer of the marbles.   That being so, the allegation regarding manufacturing defects cannot be made as against the opposite party.   

8.  In this case the dealings were between the complainant and the opposite party.  The complainant had purchased the product as per the assurance given by the opposite party.  As a dealer the opposite party should definitely know about the quality of the product.  He misled the complainant to purchase the artificial marble instead of original marble at a high price.  It definitely amounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence the above mentioned statement of the appellant cannot sustain.  The appellant further argued that the crack occurred due to the improper installation of the marble, but the opposite party failed to prove that contention. 

9.  The respondent/complainant successfully proved his case before the District Forum.  The findings of the District Forum are correct.  Therefore, there is no need to alter any part of the order.  Hence we confirm the order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 500/2015 on 05.02.2020. 

In the result, appeal is dismissed.  No order of costs.

The respondent/complainant has the right to withdraw the statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Commission at the time of filing this appeal and the amount deposited before the District Forum at the time of granting stay, on proper application.  Balance amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb