| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 86 of 22-04-2019 Decided on : 24-05-2022 Kanta Goyal, aged about 60 years, W/o Sh. Surinder Kumar R/o H. No. 1116, Model Town, Phase III, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Amba Ji Tile Studio, Main Bhatti Road, Near Dr. Bhatti Road, Bathinda, through its Prop. Bhupesh Mittal Mr. Manjeet, Area Manager of Punjab, Orient Bell Tiles, Head Office, Iris sHouse, 16 Business Centre, Nangal, Raya, DDA Complex, New Delhi 110 046 (deleted vide order dated 24-4-2019) Orient Bell Limited, Head Office at Iris House, 16 Business Centre, Nangal, Raya, DDA Complex, New Delhi 110 046, through its Managing Director/Chairman.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. M K Dhamija, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Rajiv Kumar Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 1. OP No. 2 deleted. Sh. Rajan Singla, Advocate, for OP No. 3. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Kanta Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Amba Ji Tile Studio and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased 55 Boxes of Orient Tiles for the area of 1200 sq.ft. for laying the same in her house from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 90,948/- vide Invoice No.41 dated 25.6.2017. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of tiles, opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant regarding quality of tiles by proclaiming that the same are of best quality and there is no complaint from any corner. The opposite party No. 1 further assured the complainant that the company shall provide best services in case of any complaint. After purchase, the complainant got the tiles laid down at home from the contractor Mr.Shatrughan who charged Rs.36,900/-. as labour charges @ Rs.30/- per sq.ft. for total covered area of 1230 sq.ft. The complainant also purchased 70 bags of cement by spending approx. Rs.28,000/- and Poxy of 15 Kgs. by spending approx. Rs.2,000/- which were also purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 for which the opposite party No.1 did not provide any bill. In this way, the complainant spent total sum of approx. 67,000/- for laying the said tiles purchased from the opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.3. The complainant further alleged that the said tiles did not prove to be of good quality rather within a few months from the date of laying the said tiles, some pin holes started emerging on the upper surface of the tiles and within a few days thereafter, same problem occurred in almost all the tiles. Neeraj Goyal son of the complainant informed opposite party No.1 and complained about the defect in the tiles but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed rather continued putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext. The son of the complainant made various phone calls to the opposite party No.1 and also personally visited opposite party No.1, 2/3 times. Thereafter opposite party No.1 through its authorized representative/ Prop. Mr.Bhupesh Mittal & Mr.Tinku got inspected the tiles in the premises of the complainant and orally admitted about some manufacturing defect in the tiles. They assured the complainant to do the needful at the earliest but to no effect rather the opposite party No.1 kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext. The complainant alleged that opposite party No. 2 visited the premises of complainant many times and inspected the tiles, but opposite party No. 2 made lame excuses that there is no defect in the tiles. Mr. Anuj Kr. Yadav, authorized representative of the opposite parties alongwith Mr.Tinku and opposite party No.2 Manjeet Singh also visited the premises of the complainant in January, 2019 and proclaimed that there is no defect in the tiles and it is not a case of quality issue rather the defect has developed due to the chemical downfall which is present in ply-woods that was used by the complainant during wood-work. The complainant and her son did not agree with the said lame excuse and requested the opposite parties that there is no defect in the chemical and on this, the opposite parties No.1&2 applied the same chemical on two tiles in the company godown for testing but after 20/25 days, the nature of the tiles did not change and there was no affect of the said chemicals on the tiles. The complainant further alleged that there is only quality issue and manufacturing defect in the tiles, but despite that the opposite parties failed to pay any heed rather they remained adamant that the defect is only due to the chemical down-fall only in order to avoid the liability. Neeraj Goyal son of the complainant also gave remarks on the report prepared by the opposite parties on 26.2.2019 and the complainant also wrote a separate complaint dated 26.2.2019 which was duly received by the authorized representative of the opposite party No. 3 but he gave wrong remarks on the said application that the complaint resolved within 10 days due to customer satisfaction not for quality product although the defect in the tiles appeared only due to the poor quality of the tiles. The complainant also alleged that even thereafter the complainant and her son repeatedly requested the opposite parties to admit the lawful claim of the complainant but the opposite parties failed to compensate the complainant rather they offered a partial amount of Rs.40,000/- only to the complainant whereas complainant spent Rs.90,948/- for the purchase of the tiles and Rs.67,000/- approx. for laying of the tiles, totaling to Rs.1,58,000/-. Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and loss of reputation as the tiles are giving very shabby look due to poor quality of the tiles, for which she claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 1,58,000/- and pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages/compensation in addition to Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 24-4-2019. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel but opposite party No. 1 neither filed written reply nor led any evidence. As opposite party No. 1 did not file written version and produce documents in statutory period, so right of opposite party No. 1 for filing written version was closed vide order dated 6-6-2019. The opposite party No. 3 put an appearance through counsel and filed written reply raising legal objections that the complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite party. Even otherwise, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act'. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as opposite party. It has been pleaded that complainant has concealed the fact that the opposite party after receiving the complaint, deputed Anuj Kumar Yadav, Senior Technical Executive and he after inspecting the tiles at the house of complainant submitted his report dated 26.02.2019. He concluded that the pin hole/face hole have developed due to the chemical downfall which was used by the complainant during wooden work in the house but the complainant did not agree with the above said report. Even, the complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite party on 29.01.2019 after the lapse of period of more than 17-18 months from the date of purchase of tiles. Further legal objections are that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has failed to prove the alleged defect in the tiles without taking the expert opinion. That the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party and that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 has denied that opposite party No.3 gave any assurance of providing best services as alleged. It has been pleaded that even as per instructions incorporated on the box, it is clear that after the fixation of the tiles there was no responsibility of the opposite parties in any manner. No expert report regarding the alleged loss/defect in the tiles has been placed on record by the complainant. The complainant never made any complaint regarding the alleged defect after immediate purchase of tiles rather she made report after 17-18 months from the date of purchase. The defect has developed due to the chemical downfall which was used by the complainant during wooden work in the house but the complainant and her son did not agree with the said excuse rather they remained adamant to replace the tiles along with labour charges and other material charges. The opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner. The opposite party No. 3 denied that opposite party offered any amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant. In further reply, the opposite party No. 3 reiterated its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismisssal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-8). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence two affidavits one of Manjit Kumar (Ex. OP-3/1) and other of Anuj Kumar (Ex. OP-3/2) and Inspection report (Ex. OP-3/3). Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the complainant purchased tiles worth Rs. 90,900/- from opposite party No. 1 vide invoice Ex. C-2, manufactured by opposite party No. 3 and got fitted the same in her house. The grudge of the complainant is that the tiles supplied by the opposite parties were of inferior quality due to which just after few months of purchase, some pin holes started emerging on the upper surface of the tiles. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties and authorised representative of the opposite parties visited the premises of complainant and inspected the tiles, but to no effect. The opposite party No. 3 has taken a plea in its written reply that after receving the complaint, opposite party deputed Anuj Kumar Yadav, Technical Expert and he after inspection of tiles at the house of complainant submitted his report dated 26-2-2019 and concluded that pin hole/face hole have developed due to chemical fallen on surface. Ex. OP-3/3 is the aforesaid visit report dated 26-2-2019. A perusal of this report reveals that Mr. Anuj visited the premises of the complainant alongwith Mr. Manjeet and they observed that approximately 70% material affected. It has also been mentioned in this report that Mr. Anuj and Mr. Manjeet explained the customer/complianant that it is not a quality issue of tile and this is developed due to chemical fall down on surface. In the said report, a remark has been given by Neeraj Goyal, son of complainant, which reads as under :- “Mr. Anuj has visited my site second time on 26-2-2019 and again he is saying that issue occurred due to chemical fall down. But, Mr. Anuj, Mr. Manjeet, Mr. Tinku has applied the same chemical solution on 2 tiles in company godown for testing, but after 20-25 days, the nature of tiles has not changed and there is no effect of that chemical on tiles.” The written reply of the opposite party No. 3 is absolutely silent regarding this remark of consumer/son of complainant. The opposite party No. 3 has not placed any evidence on file to rebut this remark of complainant. The opposite party No. 3 has not placed on file any evidence except above said report. There is no document/evidence on file to prove that same brand/quality of tiles were supplied to any other customer and there is no complaint regarding tiles. The opposite party No. 3 has tendered two affidvits one of Mr. Anuj and another of Mr. Manjeet who have visited the premises of the complainant, inspected the tiles and submitted report Ex. OP-3/3 by declaring that 70% material affected. If for arguments sake, this version of the representative of the opposite party No. 3 that tiles damaged due to chemical solution, is presumed to be correct, even then it is not possible that 70% of the material/tiles can be damaged due to chemical used in wood work. The complainant has placed on file sufficient evidence to prove her version. Photographs placed on file itself speaks the truth. Photographs placed on file reveals shabby look/damaged tiles. Moreover, the opposite party No. 3 has admitted that approximately 70% material affected but they tried to hide their mistake/deficiency by pleading that it is not a quality issue of tiles and this is developed due to chemical fall down on surface. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 have not placed on file any document to rebut the evidence of complainant and to prove their plea regarding chemical fall, before this Commission. Thus, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 in selling the inferior quality product to the complainant due to which she suffered financial loss as well as mental harassment. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. The complainant has placed on file bill Ex. C-2 to prove that she purchased 55 boxes of tiles manufactured by opposite party No. 3 worth Rs. 90,900/- from opposite party No. 1. To prove that Rs. 36,900/- has been spent as labour charges for getting laid the tiles in question, complainant has placed on file receipt Ex. C-4 on file. The complainant has alleged that she purchased 70 bags of cement by spending Rs. 28,000/- and Poxy of 15 Kgs by spending Rs. 2,000/-. However, the complainant has not produced on file bills regarding purchase of Cement and Poxy, but expenses incurred on these items cannot be denied as admittedly complainant got laid tiles and these items must be required for the same. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 1 & 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 are directed to pay Rs. 1,57,800/- ( Rs. 99,900/- cost of tiles + Rs. 28000/- cost of cement + Rs. 2000/- cost of Poxy and Rs. 36,900/- being labour charges) to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No.1 & 3 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @6% p.a. till realization. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 24-5-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
