SPARKLE MOSAICS INDUSTRIES Vs. M M CHACKO
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-6-3
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 15,2009

Sparkle Mosaics Industries Appellant
VERSUS
M M Chacko Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY the order dated 25.10.2005 of CDRF, Kottayam in OP 323/2000, the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment with costs of Rs. 2,000. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.
(2.)THE complainant s case before the Forum is that he has purchased mosaic tiles and chips for the flooring work of his house from the opposite party by paying Rs. 25,500 and that after few months from the laying of the same, bubbles began to appear, which in due course burst thereby the floor became ugly to took at. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complaint was filed praying for directions to replace the tiles or in the alternative to pay back the amount of Rs. 75,500 which he had incurred for the laying of the tiles and chips with compensation of Rs. 50,000 and costs.
(3.)RESISTING the complaint the opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable as the transaction was of a contract of sale and that there was no manufacturing defect for the tiles supplied by him. It was also submitted that he had reputation in the field for so many years and there was no occasion for him to contact the complainant for the sale of the tiles and that on getting information from the complainant regarding the alleged defects, he had himself gone to the premises of the complainant and found that the tiles were laid by some incompetent persons and that repeated use of low quality cleaning lotion might have been the reason for the fading of the tiles. It was also submitted that the chips supplied were purchased from M/s. Chelladurai and Company, Salem and pleading that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensation of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the complainant.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1. On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. The expert Commission appointed by the Forum was examined as CW1 and the reports filed by him were marked as C1, C2 and C3. It is based on the abovesaid evidence that the Forum passed the impugned order allowing the complaint to a greater extent.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.