National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Dinesh D. Chodankar & 2 Ors. on 11 February, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 08/05/2018 in Appeal No. 125/2017 of the State Commission Goa) 1. SUNSHINE TILES CO. PVT. LTD. O/AT 11, GROUND FLOOR, PATEL AVENUE, NEAR GURUDWARA S.G. HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD-380015 GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DINESH D. CHODANKAR & 2 ORS. R/O. FLAT NO. S-1 & 2, SECOND FLOOR, SATYAM APARTMENTS, NEAR PUBLIC WATER TANK VIA MASJID ROAD, ALTO BATIM PORVORIM
BARDEZ GOA-403521 2. M7 ENTERPRIZES THROUGH MR. SHEKAR SHIRODKAR, SHOP NO. 8,GROUND FLOOR, VENUSPA RESIDENCY, CARAN ZALEM, TISWADI, GOA-403002 3. GAJANAN CERMEMICS THROUGH WITH O/AT SHOP NO. 7 CHAMMUNI APARTMENT HARI MANDIR ROAD, MALBHAT MARGAO SALCETE GOA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Advocate
Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Feb 2019 ORDER
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist - tiles co. and perused the material on record.
2. The delay of 43 days in filing the revision petition was overlooked.
3. The dispute relates to supply of inferior quality tiles by the tiles co. to the complainant for laying in the complainant's house.
4. The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 22.09.2017 partly allowed the complaint:
8. That we have gone through the documents relied upon by the Complainant, the very documents produced by the Complainant i.e. the email dated 09/08/2014 and the email dated 07/11/2014. It is clear through the email dated 09/08/2014 exchanged between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 2 that the Opposite Party No. 2 had sold the defective floor tiles to the Complainant. Hence the Opposite Party No. 2 gave an offer of exchange of full 32 boxes of 4 x 2 tiles. The Complainant produced an Expert Report dated 28/10/2015 from Mr. Mahendranath Usgaonkar Civil Engineer. This proves that the Opposite Party No. 2 had sold the defective tiles to the Complainant. The Expert Person had also annexed the photos of the tiles clicked by him during the inspection to his report. From these photos it is clearly seen that the tiles colour had changed. Mr. Hardik Varmora the representative of the Opposite Party No. 1 in his email dated 12/11/2014 mentioned that the Opposite Party No. 2 can give full replacement of tiles value. This shows that the Opposite Party No. 3 had sold the tiles to the Complainant which are having manufacturing defects.
In the circumstances above, the Complaint is partly allowed and therefore for the reasons discussed above we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed with the following reliefs:-
a. The Opposite Party No. 2 is ordered and directed to replace full 32 boxes of 4 x 2 tiles within the period of 30 days from the order.
b. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards the cost of the present litigation.
(para 8 of the District Forum's Order)
5. The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through its Order dated 08.05.2018 partly modified the award of the District Forum:
10. The OP No. 2 who supplied the said tiles to the Complainant did not file written version and thus should be taken to have admitted the case of the Complainant. Besides the above, the Complainant has filed an affidavit of a Civil Engineer namely Mr. Mahendranath Usgaonkar who carried out inspection of the said tiles on 20/10/2015 and found that defective tiles were fitted in the premises of the said flat of the Complainant. Mr. Usgaonkar has given his report in this regard and in his affidavit, he has confirmed the contents of the same. The evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the defective tiles manufactured by OP No. 1 were sold by OP No. 2 to the Complainant. The Complainant has also produced photographs showing the defect. The Civil Engineer has also annexed a photograph to his inpection report dated 28/10/2015. In the report, the Civil Engineer has stated that the tiles have some inbuilt markings like that of some packing material. This marking pattern was highly visible when the tiles are seen from the angle against the backdrop of light. The report says that the engineer tried to clean the said markings, but the said defect being a manufacturing defect could not be cleaned. The report says that most of the tiles have hazy marking in two horizontal line like pattern covering almost the full tile and the same spoils the beauty of both rooms where the tiles are fitted. This hazy marking was also seen all around the edges of all the tiles. The report also says that some undulation at the edges of most of the tiles are clearly visible and even felt when touched with bare feet or fingers. The report says that the tiles have manufacturing defect within its body which effect cannot be rectified and the only remedial action is to remove the fitted tiles and to install new tiles. There is no reason at all not to accept the report which is supported by the affidavit of the expert engineer.
11. The Complainant wants refund of the present running cost of similar tiles along with associated cost of removal of old fitted tiles which he will have to undergo in relation to removal, disposal, fitting, permission from authorities etc., amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. However, since the tiles have been purchased from OP No. 2 and the same are manufactured by OP No. 1, as has been rightly advised by the expert engineer Mr. Mahendranath Usgaonkar, the said defective tiles should be ordered to be removed and fresh tiles without any defect should be ordered to be fitted and this would be the appropriate relief which should be granted to the Complainant.
12. It can be certainly said that the Complainant had to undergo mental agony and harassment as well as anxiety and the defect has caused inconvenience to him due to which reasonable compensation ought to have been awarded to him. The Complainant had prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. But without stating any reason, the Forum has not awarded any compensation at all to the Complainant towards mental agony and harassment.
13. In our view, therefore the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and fresh order should be made so that the grievance of the Complainant is adequately redressed.
14. In the result, we pass the following Order:-
ORDER Appeal is partly allowed. The Impugned order stands modified as under:
The OPs No. 1 and 2, shall jointly and severally, supply full 32 boxes of 4x2 tiles of the same type but without any defect, shall get the old fitted tiles removed and new tiles without defects fitted in the house of the Complainant at their cost within a period of 60 days from today and further shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days failing which the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of said period of 30 days till the date of payment.
(paras 10,11,12,13 and 14 of the State Commission's Order)
6. The tiles co. has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 08.05.2018 of the State Commission.
7. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisals made by the two fora quoted, verbatim, in paras 4 and 5 above. We find the award made by the State Commission (quoted in para 5 above) to be just and appropriate. And, on the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
8. The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.
9. Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
10. A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within ten days.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER