1. THE appellant being aggrieved by the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana dismissing the complaint and directing to pay the cost of Rs. 500/- to the respondent has preferred this appeal. THE complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 1,000/- with the respondent for the purchase of flooring tiles and paid the remaining amount on 31.3.92 and the delivery of the flooring tiles was given on 31.5.92. After delivery the mason of the respondent had fixed and polished the tiles. Subsequently complainant made grievance that the colour of the tiles was not uniform and the flooring tiles were not to the satisfaction. Another grievance of the complainant was that the delivery was given more than 30 days late and, therefore, the mason engaged by him had left and subsequently he had to engage the mason of the respondent and had to pay more charges.
2. THE respondent by written statement as well as in affidavit established that the tiles were to be supplied within 30 days after the full payment but the payment was made on 31.5.1992 and, therefore, he stated that the due amount was paid after 2 months and, therefore, the delivery would be given late by one month and the delivery was then given and it was accepted by the appellant. After that the appellant requested for the worker for fixing and polishing the tiles and at the request of the appellant the worker was sent who completed the job satisfactorily and after 10 days the labour charges of the mason were paid. After that the appellant did not make any grievance for 10 months and then made the grievance and, therefore, the respondent and the mason Shiv Dayal Dwarka prasad Shrama had gone to the appellant and found that there was no manufacturing defect and the tiles had not broken and chips had not come out and subsequent to the fixing of the tiles the appellant had got carpentry work done and because of the tools and some materials which had spread on the floor, the dark colour of the material was found on the tiles. As such there was no defect. Shiv Dayal Dwarkaprasad Shrama also supported the evidence of the respondent and stated that there was no manufacturing defect or colour had not faded. THE scratches etc. were because of the tools of the carpenter who had subsequently done carpentry work etc. and some colour had failed on the floor and because of that, that colour was found in some parts of the floor.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has accepted the evidence of the respondent and witness and we do not find any reasons to differ from the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is clear that the appellant did not make any grievance immediately after the tiles were polished and paid the worker after about 10 days after that. Even after that for about 10 months no grievance was made about the quality of the tiles. It is also clear that other work was done and because of that scratches etc. were found on the tiles and the colour had also fallen on the tiles. For that the respondent could not be held responsible. The order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is, therefore, unassailable and we do not find any reason to interfere in the order dismissing the complaint.
The appellant has made the grievance that inspite of his bonafide complaint, the cost of Rs. 500.00 is directed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. Considering the circumstances we find that the parties should have been directed to bear their own cost of the complaint. We do not find any cause of want of bonafide of the complaint. We, therefore, think it just that the parties should be directed to bear own cost of the complaint and of the appeal. The appeal therefore should be partially allowed. ORDER The appeal is partially allowed and the order directing to pay the cost of Rs. 500 /- by the complainant to the respondent is set aside. Rest of the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana is confirmed. Parties to bear their own cost of the complaint and appeal. Appeal partially allowed. _____________
