R V DEVARAJAN vs K PALANISWAMY

-THE complainants in COP No. 195/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore are the appellants herein. Their case was as follows : they had entered into an arrangement with the opposite parties to supply and fix superior quality mosaic tiles in green colour for their building and had paid Rs. 46,100 between 19. 9. 1996 and 19. 2. 1997 ; that in May, June 1997 the opposite party fixed and laid green colour mosaic tiles. Even during the laying the colour began to fade and this was due to bad quality of the tiles. This was brought to the notice of the opposite party. They accepted that there was manufacturing defect due to defective oxide in the tiles; that there was error or mistake in laying and doing polishing and agreed to replace them with fresh tiles at their cost. This they did not do. The cost of construction of the whole building was Rs. 10 lakh. Since the mosaic tiles were not of good quality and were irksome, the family people were not prepared to live or reside in the house. The conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service causing mental agony, etc. There was a notice issued on 5. 2. 1998. A reply was sent by the opposite party containing untenable contentions. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to remove the mosaic tiles fixed and fix high quality green colour mosaic tiles at their cost and to pay Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony besides costs of the complaint.

THE opposite parties contested the complaint contending inter alia as follows: The mosaic tiles supplied were of good quality. The opposite parties never accepted the stand of the complainants that due to defective oxide in the process of manufacturing the mosaic tiles were of inferior quality which resulted in change of colour. The opposite parties had supplied high quality mosaic tiles. If as contended by the complainants the mosaic supplied was of very poor quality, they would not have made part payments. One year after the laying the complainants had come forward with false and frivolous allegations. Even conceding that the complainants'' case was true, it would be only because of the complainants'' mismanagement of the mosaic flooring. The mosaic tiles had no colour changing character and only if low quality cleaning chemicals were used for cleaning the mosaic tiles in daily use which would have resulted in such a problem. Only very few tiles in the kitchen room, pathway of one room and the balcony were affected and that too by the complainants'' mismanagement. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. Before the District Forum on the side of the complainants Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties no document was marked. There was an Advocate Commissioner appointed who inspected the property and submitted a report along with a plan which were marked as Exs. C-1 and C-2.

The District Forum accepted the case of the complainants that the mosaic tiles fixed were of inferior quality due to which the colour either changed to blue or faded ; that the opposite parties had thus committed deficiency in service and in that view directed the opposite parties to refund to the complainants Rs. 46,100 received by them for the mosaic tiles besides paying Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as costs, by order dated 20. 7. 2000. Not satisfied with the quantum awarded, the complainants have filed the present appeal claiming enhanced amounts.

THOUGH the opposite parties have been served, they have not chosen to appear and contest the appeal. On behalf of the complainants/ appellants it was submitted that the District Forum failed to take into consideration the other materials required for laying of mosaic and further failed to consider that once the existing mosaic flooring was removed the complainants would have to put new high quality mosaic and for that the complainants would have to incur expenditure for new mosaic tiles and re-laying charges. The District Forum had not properly considered the report of the Advocate Commissioner while quantifying the amount payable to the complainants. The main grievance of the learned Counsel on behalf of the complainants was that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was inadequate.

WHAT the complainants had spent for the mosaic tiles had been directed to be returned to them and according to the learned Counsel, the District Forum had not awarded any amount for removing the already laid mosaic tiles and for re-laying new tiles. This contention, in our view, appears to be reasonable and deserves acceptance at our hands. In our view, what has been awarded by the District Forum is fair and adequate with regard to compensation. However, with regard to cost for breaking the tiles already laid, the District Forum ought to have granted some amount which we quantify at Rs. 10,000. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and in addition to what has been awarded by the District Forum, the complainants shall be entitled to Rs. 10,000 payable within eight weeks from today, failing which the amount will carry interest at 9% p. a. till payment. Appeal partly allowed.