Haryana

StateCommission

A/968/2015

SOMANY CERAMICS LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAWAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK SURI

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.968 of 2015

Date of the Institution:06.11.2015

Date of Decision: 07.04.2017

 

1.      Somany Ceramics Ltd. through its Officer Incharge, 82/19, Bhakerwara Road, Mundka, New Delhi.

2.      Somany Ceramics Ltd. through its Officer Incharge, village and Post Office Kassar, Delhi Road, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

1.      Pawan Kumar son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of village Sohbpur, now residing at Mohalla Malviya Nagar, Near Employees Colony, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

•  

 

2.      Bijender Marbles, Rajeev Chowk, New Mandi, Narnaul (Haryana) through proprietor.

                                                                   .….Proforma Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate counsel for the appellants

Mr.Rao Ajinder Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Somany Ceramics Ltd. -OP is in appeal against the Order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Pawan Kumar has been allowed by directing the OP-1 to pay Rs.48759/- to the complainant alongwith interest @10% per annum, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,200/- as litigation charges, as the tiles supplied by them were found defective.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant had purchased 70 boxes of Somany Premium First Class Quality Tiles for an amount of Rs.39,759/- from OP No.3 vide bill No.1227 dated 09.10.2010, for use in the floor of his house. After some time, the colour of the tiles got changed and the tiles reflected double shade. Due to supply of defective tiles by the OPs, the complainant suffered a huge financial loss, due to which he asked the OPs to replace the tiles or to refund its price. But the OPs did not agree to that. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 24.10.2011 through his counsel, but to no effect. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
3. In their joint written statement OPs 1 & 2 pleaded that OP No.3 was not an authorized dealer of the Somany Tiles, marketed and manufactured by Somany Ceramic Ltd. The tiles were either manufactured in different lots or they were manufactured by some local company. The tiles manufactured by Somany Ceramics ltd. in a particular lot did not fade or reflect double shade in any set of circumstances, after the same were laid in the walls and floors. The OPs were not responsible for the alleged defect in the quality of the tiles supplied by OP No.3, because OPs No.1 & 2 were not aware as to whether the OP No.3 had actually supplied the same ceramic tiles as manufactured by OP No.1 & 2. Therefore, OPs 1 & could not be held liable for the alleged loss, if any, sustained by the complainant.
4. In the separate written statement filed by OP No.3 it was pleaded that that vide bill dated 11.03.2010, the complainant had purchased the tiles of Somany Company for an amount of Rs.2,09,367/- and vide bill dated 25.03.2010 he had also purchased the goods for an amount of Rs.1,12,736/-. The tiles sold to the complainant were purchased by OP No.3 from Somany Company vide above bills. It is denied that the alleged tiles became defective and if at all any defect had developed in the tiles, the manufacturing company was liable for the same. The learned District Forum rejected the plea of the OPs 1 & 2  and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief against OPs 1 & 2.  
5. Against the impugned order, the OPs 1 & 2 /appellants have filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A scrutiny of the documentary evidence led by the parties have established on record the following facts:-
   1. The tiles in dispute were purchased on 09.10.2010 vide bill No.1227, whereas the legal notice for the first time was issued by the complainant after full one year i.e. on 24.10.2011, in which the allegation regarding tiles being defective was made. 
   2. Even this allegation was made after the tiles had been laid, whereas the manufacturing company had clearly displayed on each and every carton of the tiles in bold letters the following disclaimer “Once the tiles are laid we do not entertain complaints”. The complainant was fully aware of this basic condition of purchase and use of the tiles.
   3. The allegation about the tiles being defective having faded their colour has been made by the complainant after the same were laid, only on the advice of a Junior Engineer/mason.  No evidence whatsoever of an expert about the tiles being defective, having a manufacturing defect or otherwise has been led by the complainant.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid factual position, no inference whatsoever can be drawn against the manufacturing company nor can they be had responsible after the tiles were laid by the complainant. That too after the expiry of one year of their actual purchase. Hence, neither any unfair trade practice nor any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service can be proved against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside, dismissing the complaint of the complainant with no order as to costs.

7.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

April 07th, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench