LAW FOR ALL

Claim for damages of flooring tiles by Hostel - Delay not explained , damaged goods not returned with out any proof- Hostel Non-commercial not a consumer - failure to prove damage - So complaint not maintainable = failed to prove that the girls hostels was not being used for commercial purpose and confirm that they were not taking charges from the inmates. It is not known on what facts/ basis the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainants were not carrying ‘commercial activities’. - As such we hold that respondents/ complainants have not been able to establish beyond doubt that they are consumers as per the definition in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable.= Hence, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable. Even for a moment if it is accepted that the complaint is maintainable, as discussed, respondents 1 and 2 have failed to prove that the tiles procured by them in the year 2000 and 2001 were defective and not damaged thereafter. The petitioner, in their reply before the District Forum, had clearly indicated that on every carton of tiles it has been very clearly stated that ‘the company will bear no liability after the tiles are fixed’. Further, as per the instructions on the tile cartons it was very clearly stated that before fixing of the tiles they must be laid out in the desired pattern and if the customer is not satisfied with the tiles for any reasons relating to the size or shades variation then the same can be replaced by the Company before fixing but once the tiles are fixed the company bears no liability. In the present case it is an undisputed fact that the respondent/complainant complained after more than 17/18 months of the first purchase in February 2000 and they could not prove beyond doubt that the damage was not due to poor maintenance or rough usage. It has also nowhere been mentioned that out of the total number of tiles purchased how many were received defective/ damaged. Further, instead of replacing the damaged tiles the respondents for reasons not on record seeking the cost of replacement of the entire flooring. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the orders of the Fora below are set aside and the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- Respondent is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission’ within four weeks from today. In case the respondent fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 15th November, 2013 for compliance.