State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Mrs. Sudha Ladha, vs 1. Monier Roofing India Pvt. Ltd., on 15 April, 2009
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia .. Presiding Member Smt. Caroline Collasso .. Member. Complaint No. 15/2008 1. Mrs. Sudha Ladha, Major of age, Wife of Vivek Ladha, r/o 214, Nagali Hills Colony, Dona Paula Goa. 2. Mr. Vivek Ladha, Major of age, r/o 214, Nagali Hills Colony, Dona Paula Goa. Complainants v/s 1. Monier Roofing India Pvt. Ltd., Through its Head Sales & Marketing Executive (Earlier known as Lafarge Roofing India Pvt. Ltd.,) Having office at 143/C3, Donnasundra Industrial Area, First Phase, Bangalore 560 099. 2. Finishing Touch, Through its Area Manager, G-6, Bldg No.A-1, Jairam Complex, Near Goa Handicraft, Rua de Ourem, Nevginagar, Panaji Goa. .. Opposite Party. For the Complainant ..Shri A. Bhobe, Advocate. Dated: 15-04-2009 ORDER
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. We heard Ld Adv Shri Ashwin Bhobe on behalf of the complainants at some length on admissibility of the complaint. The complainants allege defective goods supplied and deficiency in services rendered by the opposite parties.
2. Succinctly, it is their case that on the basis of the representation made by the opposite parties, they agreed to avail the services and material from them, namely purchase of Lafarge Elabana Transparent roofing tiles and installation thereof etc on their bungalow at Dona Paula for an agreed consideration of Rs.4,86,560/-. The opposite parties deputed their engineers and marketing officials to visit the complainants bungalow who assured the complainants that the product could be installed on the bungalow. The opposite parties claimed that the roofing system was so well designed that no water-proofing on the slab was required. The complainants also agreed to provide ridge tree and tile clips to enhance safety and water tightness. The opposite parties agreed that retention for one monsoon was part of their offer and purchase order. The opposite parties delayed in supplying the tiles by over 100 days.
3. The tiles were laid by one Mr Munna, an approved roofer of the opposite parties somewhere in month of August 2006. However, the tiles were blown off the roof on one evening. Although the approved roofer claimed that the tiles were screwed, the engineers of the opposite parties claimed that the incident occurred due to defective installation. During an inspection of the site in July 2006, representatives of the opposite parties also noted that some of the tiles had discolored. Even after so-called corrective measures taken by the opposite parties, the tiles continued to leak thereby causing damage to the structure and discomfort to the occupants of the bungalow. The complainants informed the opposite parties about the defects and problems faced by them. The defective tiles and workmanship was noticed by representatives of the opposite party during their visit.
4. Shri Raghunandan K, technical advisor of the opposite parties admitted by email that laying of the roof of the bungalow was not done in a proper manner by their roofer on account of nil supervision. Color variations and interlock upliftment of the tiles was also admitted. On account of leakage, the entire floor of the bungalow became slippery and there was danger of accidents. The opposite parties informed the complainants on 27-11-2006 that they had decided to replace the defective tiles and fittings.
5. However, the replacement work done under the supervision of the technical engineer Mr Raghunandan proved to be ineffective and the problem of leakage persisted and continued in the monsoons of 2007 and the color of the tiles faded which was brought to the notice of the opposite parties through various communications. This fact was acknowledged by the one Mr Niloy Ghosh deputed by the opposite parties. In October 2007, the complainants were assured that their complaints were being looked into. However, by communication dated 19-11-2007, the complainants called upon the opposite parties to take back their material and refund the amounts paid by them.
6. After visiting the complainants bungalow in November 2007, one Mr Ashok Ninian, the sales and marketing manager of the opposite parties wrote to the complainants suggesting replacement of the tiles and thereafter on 05-12-2007 informed the complainants that the roofing was required to be re-laid as per different pattern suggested by their Malaysian counterparts. Again, vide letter dated 17-04-2008, the opposite parties acknowledged the problems faced by the complainants and assured replacement of the Elebana tiles around the central pyramid.
7. In May 2008, the complainants paid an amount of Rs. 37,009/- as requested by the opposite parties and thereafter the work of re-laying the tiles as per new pattern was commenced. Despite this, the leakage continued and the leaks became worse than before. The complainants interaction with the opposite parties to resolve the problem continued; however they were shocked to receive a letter dated 17-09-2008 from the opposite parties stating that the slope of their structure was required to be changed. The complainants alleged that the material supplied to them and installation thereof was defective and sub-standard. The complainants then filed the complaint valued at Rs.21,00,000/-.
8. The complainants, in addition to claiming refund of the amount of Rs.4,67,010/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.40,000/- spent on painting and other works done on account of the leakage, have claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards harassment, mental torture and suffering caused on account of the defective works.
9. It is the valuation of the complaint that requires examination at the admission stage. Admittedly, the cost of the roofing tiles paid by the complainants to the opposite parties is Rs.2,76,416/-. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid to the transporter and Rs.75,594/- was paid to the approved roofer who incidentally is not arrayed as party. An amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was spent by the complainants on fabricated structure. The aggregate amounts on the above being Rs.4,67,010/-. Even if one includes the amount of Rs.40,000/- claimed to have been spent on painting, polishing etc required to be done on account of the leakage, the cumulative amount comes to Rs. 5,07,010/-. The complainants have claimed Rs.15,00,000/- towards harassment, mental torture and suffering, which in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances, is exaggerated and disproportionate. Except for an averment made in paragraph 50 of the complaint, there is no justification for the compensation evident in the pleadings. Although the complainants have stated that they commenced construction of a bungalow in 2005, they are silent on whether the bungalow was inhabited by them during the monsoons of 2006, 2007 & 2008 as to give credence to their claim. Obviously, the amount of Rs. Rs.15,00,000/- was included to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission, which, minus that amount can be entertained by the District Forum. Invariably, prejudice would also be caused the opposite parties as they would be deprived of one rung of appellate fora provided under the Act.
10. The Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Anil K Jain vs. Delhi Development Authority F.A. 95/2007 held as follows:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Commission ought not to have transferred the complaint to the District Forum for consideration because the claim of the complainant was for a sum of Rs. 34 lacs. He submitted that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to decide at admission stage that the claim of the complainant was exaggerated and it was for the complainant to justify its claim at the time of hearing of the complaint before the State Commission by leading necessary evidence.
In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
It is not necessary that the State Commission should admit such complaint and keep it pending for years. If such complaints are kept pending before the Consumer Fora then the entire purpose and object of rendering speedy justice to the consumers would be frustrated.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Fora have to find out whether the complaint is maintainable or not and with regard to the admissibility of the complaint, Consumer Fora are ordinarily required to decide within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was received.
Hence, it was the duty of the State Commission to decide whether the complaint was required to be entertained on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and that has been done in the present case.
11. In the result, the complaint is hereby returned with direction that, if so advised, the complainants may approach the District Forum after putting in proper amount of compensation.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member