ANJALI NATH vs M/S. BHOWAL & CO

The complainant/petitioner purchased ''Dungri'' stone from the respondent/opposite party for a house he was constructing, paying a sum of Rs.58,113/- for the said marble stone. The complainant also claims to have incurred expenditure of Rs.13,800/- on fixing the said stone. The case of the complainant is that the stone which she had purchased from the respondent and got fixed in her house cracked soon after it was got fixed. The complainant requested the opposite party to replace the cracked stone but the said request was not acceded to. Being aggrieved she approached the concerned District Forum seeking the refund of the expenditure incurred by her along with compensation and cost of litigation.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite party alleging therein that the complainant had not even paid the entire price of the marble purchased by her and the complaint was barred by limitation. It was also stated in the reply that the opposite party had already instituted a suit against the complainant for recovery of the amount due from her. It was further stated in the reply that the complainant herself had chosen the stone on the basis of its quality and color and no complaint was made to them prior to 23-06-2008.

Vide its order dated 12-11-2012 the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund the cracked stones or in the alternative refund the entire amount of Rs.51,183/-. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/- was also awarded to the complainant.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 13-02-2014 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of her complaint, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

The Dungri stone is a natural product and not a manufactured product. The stone is purchased on the basis of its appearance, thickness, clarity, colour and quality. If the natural stone cracks after fixing, it can be due to a variety of factors such as inherent weakness of the stone or the deficiency in the process of fixing the said stone. There is no evidence of any assurance about any particular quality of the stone having been given by the opposite party to the complainant. If a natural product such as a marble stone purchased on the basis of its appearance and origin does not prove to be of the quality expected by the buyer, the seller of the product cannot be held responsible for the weakness of the stone. It has come in the evidence of the architect produced by the complainant that the marble supplied by the opposite party was not of the specified thickness of 20-25 mm and that is why it has cracked. However, there is no evidence of the opposite party having sold marble of 20-25 mm thickness to the complainant. This is not the case of the complainant that the marble supplied to her was different from the marble which was shown to her by the opposite party. Moreover, in case marble supplied to her was not of the specified

thickness, clarity and colour, the complainant would have rejected it instead of cutting and fixing it on the floor of her building. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the opposite party was not required to replace the Dungri stone supplied by it to the complainant.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.