DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2023
Filed on: 20/11/2015
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 769/2015
Between
COMPLAINANT
Iqubal, S/o. late Muhammed Ali, Pallickal, Cheruvaloor, Kallur, Vadakkummury, Chalakkudy
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Abdul Salam, Proprietor, Chaithanya Granite and marbles, Bypass, Edappally, Cochin 682024.
(Rep. by Adv. Firoz, Behind High Court, Power House Road (West End) Ernakulam 682018)
- Favourite Emporio, Shop No. ½, Surya Complex 2, Sawsar Plot, Morbi 363641, Gujarath. Rep. by its authorized signatory
(Rep. by Adv. Aneesh K.M., M/s. MPR Associates, Chittoor Road, Cochin 35)
- Comet Granito Pvt. Ltd., (Comet Vitrified Tiles), 8A, National Highway, Nava Jam budiya, Morbi, Gujarath 363642.
FINAL ORDER
V. Ramachadran, Member:
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased 146 boxes crystal white vitrified tiles and 24 boxes of Black vitrified tiles on payment of Rs.2,48,000/- from the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant had purchased white vitrified tile of 20 boxes on payment of Rs.14,498/-. The complainant further alleges that he had purchased filler powders and other accessories suggested by the opposite party to make the tile more attractive. The main allegation of the complainant is that the vitrified tiles supplied by the opposite party is of inferior quality and therefore the four edges and the colour of the tiles become brownish just a few weeks after laying and become unattractive. The complainant attribute that it is due to the inferior quality of tiles supplied by the opposite party. Therefore the complainant approached this Commission seeking for issuing order to the opposite party to refund the amount made by him along with the other reliefs.
Upon notice from this Commission the 1st and 2nd opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed their version.
In the version the 1st opposite party stated that they are only a retailer and they have given vitrified tile to the complainant manufactured by Comet Granito Pvt. Ltd. through M/s. Shubh Tiles, Ernakulam. The complainant had not made both of them as opposite party and as a retailer he had sold only the tile received from the manufacturer through M/s. Shubh Tiles and no way responsible for any loss sustained to the complainant since he had not assured either about the quality or about the way of paving.
The 2nd opposite party took almost the same contention and stated that they are only a wholesale agency and the allegation of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer is not correct. Further they argued that the name of the manufacturer is shown in the boxes of the tiles.
Even though the complainant had impleaded the 3rd and 4th opposite parties subsequently, and deleted 4th opposite party from the opposite party array. The 3rd opposite party was set ex-pate.
An Expert Commissioner was appointed to inspect the tiles and the main portion of the expert commission report is as follows:
“The tiles laid on the floor of the complainant’s house was crystal white vitrified tiles of size 800 x 800 m.m. It is seen that on all four sides of the tiles, near to the joints, colour fading occurs for a width of 7 cm to 10 cm from the tile ends. It is observed that the tiles were laid over the cement sand mortar using the ordinary grey cement. There is a thick white coating at the top of the tile. The discoloration occurs due to the absorption of the grey cement slurry through the joints of all the four sides of the white tiles in all the rooms.
Usually, the cement slurry is poured above the levelled cement sand mortar and the tiles are fixed above this. At the time of fixing by pressing the cement slurry poured above the cement sand mortar will come to the top of the tiles. Absorption of this slurry water through joints of the tiles causes this slight colour change at the four sides for a width of 3 inches to 4 inches.
This type of white tiles should be laid using white cement slurry instead of grey cement slurry to avoid the absorption of colours by the tiles. The shop owner/manufacturing company should have informed this to the customers.”
The complainant filed 4 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A4 and the opposite party had not filed any evidence from his side. Exbt. A1 is the copy of Tax Invoice, Exbt. A2 is the copy of registered notice sent to the opposite party, Exbt. A3 is the reply notice and Exbt. A4 is photographs. The Commission upon made a thorough verification of all the above documents and along with the contention of the opposite parties.
The points for consideration are:
- Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
- Cost of the proceedings if any?
On going through the documents filed by the complainant and the version of the opposite parties and also on the basis of the expert commission report it can be seen that defect if any occurred is only due to the paving and laying of tiles unscientifically and complainant had failed to file any evidence to substantiate his case to prove that the laying of tiles was made by opposite parties or their labours or under their supervision which is the reason for the loss sustained to the complainant which has caused any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and thereby caused loss to the complainant. Therefore the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 16th day of August, 2023.
D.B.Binu, President
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Copy of Tax Invoice
Exbt. A2: Copy of registered notice sent to the opposite party
Exbt. A3: Reply notice
Exbt. A4: Photographs
Opposite parties’ evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 769/2015
Order Date: 16/08/2023
