V. PRASAD vs M/S. ORACLE GRANITIO LTD. & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 04.05.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in two cross appeals, First Appeal No. 1100/2009 and First Appeal No. 816/2010 between the parties, vide which, the order dated 08.04.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad in Consumer Complaint No. 568/2008, filed by the present petitioner/complainant, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant V. Prasad purchased flooring tiles from M/s. Oracle Granito Ltd., Secunderabad for his newly purchased flat at Hyderabad. The OP No. 3 assured him about the quality/material of the tiles and that he purchased two different brands of tiles, after making payment of Rs. 54,920/- by cash on 29.10.2007. On 22.01.2008, he purchased two more items of tiles from the OP No. 3, after making payment of Rs. 8,000/- in cash. The OP No. 3 also assured the complainant that he would get the work of laying the tiles done by his office workers. After the flooring work had been finished by the workmen of the OP No. 3, the complainant observed that the material supplied by the OP No. 3 was of bad quality and the surface of each tile was uneven, without proper finish and there were cavities observed between the tiles after laying the same. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum against the OPs, seeking directions to them to pay him an amount of Rs. 77,920/-, which included Rs. 62,920/- as the cost of tiles and Rs. 15,000/- as labour charges and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for cost of material like cement, sand etc. and a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written statement before the District Forum saying that they had explained the technical specifications of the tiles to the complainant at the time of purchase and also gave the comparison table of leading international brands. The variations in size of the tiles were also informed to the complainant at the time of purchase. The OPs stated that they had not indulged in any kind of unfair trade practice and hence, the complaint against them should be dismissed.

The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 29.10.2007 i.e. the date of purchase of the material till realisation and also allowed Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission. The said Commission allowed the appeal filed by the OPs and set aside the order of the District Forum. The appeal filed by the complainant was ordered to be dismissed and consequently, the consumer complaint was also ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments that since the tiles in question were defective, the complainant should be properly compensated. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the reply filed by the OPs before the District Forum in which they have admitted that there were variations in size of the tiles. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld. The learned counsel stated that they never wrote any letter to the complainant asking them to pay Rs. 15,000/- as labour charges. On the other hand, they had sent letter dated 04.11.2008 to the complainant, stating the lowest quote for the supply of tiles alongwith the terms and conditions of the offer.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The main point for consideration in the matter is whether the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for their allegation that the tiles supplied by them and the laying work done were defective. The State Commission in the impugned order observed as follows:- "It is not known on what basis the complainant would say that the flooring tiles that were supplied to him under Ex. A1 to A4 are of inferior quality. There is no evidence on record to show any agreement was entered into in between the complainant and the opposite parties for laying the tiles in the flat purchased by the complainant. There must be a separate agreement to it. From seeing the photos under Ex. A17 to A26 nothing could be decided whether the tiles that were fixed are of good quality or bad quality. Evidence of ceramic expert is not produced. From seeing the photos one cannot be said that the tiles were not fixed properly. A sketch will be prepared by the person who undertakes the job and hands it over to the person for fixing at the required place. No such material evidence was produced."

From the material available on record, there is no evidence to prove the contention of the complainants/petitioner that the tiles were defective in any manner. It is made out from the version of the complainant as well as the OPs that he visited the shop of the OPs before purchase of tiles and placed order for the same only after seeing the tiles displayed. It is not made out, therefore, whether the tiles were defective or the flooring work done was not upto the market. The State Commission have rightly observed that in the absence of any evidence of ceramic expert, it cannot be stated whether the quality of the tiles was defective or not. I agree with the conclusion of the State Commission that simply by having a look at the photographs, it cannot be concluded, whether tiles were of good or bad quality. The State Commission also observed that there was no evidence on record to show that the opposite party had got the work done by sending their own labour. There was no written agreement also between the parties regarding the supply of tiles or getting them fixed on the floor.

Based on the discussion above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.