R V DEVARAJAN Vs. K PALANISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.