SUDESH RAJ DHAWAN vs AGGARWAL MARBLE HOUSE

THIS appeal preferred by the partially successful consumer-complainant primarily seeks the enhancement of the compensation amount of Rs. 1000/- granted by the District Forum, Ambala. It is, therefore, unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts and the merits.

SUFFICE it to mention that the appellant had purchased marble from the respondent concern for laying the flooring of the bath-rooms in his house. It was his case that on use the marble was found to be of inferior quality and there were many holes in its surface and it did not give any shine even after the final grinding and polishing. The complainant obtained the opinion of a civil engineer who whilst giving the same inter-alia stated that the sample of the marble slabs may be sent to some laboratory to get a report for its strength and quality as required. A claim to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- for the cost of the marble, its laying and physical and mental torture was raised. In defending the complaint, the respondent took up the firm plea that the marble was purchased after due checking and inspection by the complainant from his shop and no assurance about its quality etc. either written or verbal was given. The report of the civil engineer was assailed and allegations of cantankerousness were raised against the complainant.

The respondent after filing the written statement was proceeded ex-parte and on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant-appellant, the District Forum opined as follows : "Thus, the ex-parte evidence dots not help the complainant to prove his case as to the extent of strength and quality the marble was short of. Therefore, the evidence does not lead this Forum any where and thus, the Forum is unable to give its finding regarding the strength and quality of the marble."

MR. Grewal, the learned Counsel for the appellant primarily stressed that the quantum of compensation granted was inadequate and not commensurate with the loss and damage allegedly suffered by the appellant. It was pleaded that in view of the feet that the respondent did not chose to defend the complaint and was proceeded exparte, the appellant''s claim to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- should have been allowed in full. On the other hand Mr. Bansal the learned Counsel for the respondent had vehemently contended that marble is a natural stone and not a man made element and it was for the buyer to be beware of the quality of the same which he was purchasing. It was contended that there was no prescribed standard for the strength and quality of marble by law nor any assurance or claim had been given by respondent-trader with regard thereto. It was also the submission that under Section 13(1), the complaint could only succeed on the basis of a laboratory test and even though the same was advised by the appellant''s own civil engineer, no such laboratory test was not conducted.

THE submissions made on behalf of the respondent are not devoid of an element of plausibility. However, it is manifest that as a respondent they cannot now challenge the order under appeal or claim that the complaint be dismissed or the granted compensation be set-aside. At the highest the enhancement of the compensation alone can now be challenged on their behalf. On behalf of the appellant, no adequate ground for enhancement could be made out. Infact on the somewhat ambivalent finding of the District Forum, the grant of compensation would become a moot-point itself. Barring the complainant appellants own words, no other meaningful evidence was led on the specific issue of quantum of damages. The District Forum''s quantification in this context, therefore, does not seem to merit any interference. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the consumer-appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.