SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

     Complainant filed this complaint for getting  an order directing  the  opposite party to pay Rs.2,90,000/- towards expenses for the  damaged tiles, for laying new tiles and also for  compensation.

   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant  had purchased flooring tiles and other materials for Rs.75,071/- from the 1^st OP that the complainant laid the tiles in his newly constructed up stair bedroom.  After the one month of laying the tiles , colour of the  tiles was faded.  Complainant alleged that  this was happened due to the bad quality of the tiles supplied by the 1^st OP to the complainant.  Further submitted that  while purchasing the tiles, 1^st OP has not issued the proper bills for purchase.  The act of OP is deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

    After receiving notice 1^st OP entered appearance and filed version admitting the  purchase of tiles and  paid  bill dtd.21/1/2021 for Rs.75,071/- to the complainant. But denied the allegation of the complainant.  It is stated that the 1^st OP had  already advised  the complainant to use fixing powder and gum while laying  tiles.  If at all, any defect is caused , it might have caused due to the negligence and carelessness of the manson who undertook the work and thus he is to be held liable  for his defective work. It is  submits that  there was  only sample of the  tiles exhibited in the  show room of OP and  after the visit, the complainant who wished  to purchase similar tiles , as agreed  by the complainant, an against order purchase was initiated against the complainant  by this OP.  Accordingly sealed package of tiles were delivered to the complainant and on top  the sealed packages, it is clearly written that if  any defects found on the tiles, it can be claimed  and returned before laying the tiles on the floor.  The items were delivered to the residence of the complainant on 11/2/2021 in 2 goods carriage vehicles and invoice numbers B992 & B987 were issued in his name by giving  a further  discount of Rs.1100/- to the complainant and also free delivery of goods to the residence of the complainant.  Thus an amount of Rs.70900/- was  paid in total by the complainant for his total purchase and an amount of Rs.57092/- was paid by the complainant for alleged defective tiles. 1^st OP states that  he had given a clear reply to the  lawyer notice stated that he is not liable for the defects, if any suffered by the complainant.  Hence prayed for the dismissal  of the complaint.

   On the basis of the contentions raised by 1^st OP, additional OPs 2 and 3 were impleaded as per IA No.321/2022.  Additional 2^nd OP after receiving notice, filed version adopting the contentions of 1^st OP.  While pending of this complaint, complainant has taken steps to appoint an Advocate commissioner.  The application  was allowed and an advocate commissioner was  appointed.

   Evidence adduced consisted of  the proof affidavit of complainant.  Examined as PW1, marked Exts.A1&A2 and Ext.C1 .  On the side of  OPs, Proprietor of 1^st OP  shop filed his chief affidavit, examined as DW1, marked Exts.B1 and B2.  After that  learned counsels of  complainant and 1^st OP filed their  argument notes.  We have gone through the material submitted, Advocate commissioner’s report and submissions of parties.

     Here there is no dispute that the complainant purchased tiles and other connected materials from 1^st OP and the cost of flooring tiles amounting to Rs.58435/-.  Further complainant has laid the flooring tiles in his 1^st floor of the  building.  Complainant alleged that after one month of laying the tiles, colour of the tiles was faded.  It is alleged that it was happened due to the bad low quality  of the tiles supplied by the 1^st OP.  It is also alleged that 1^st OP has not issued the proper bills for the purchase.

    On the other hand, 1^st OP denied the two allegations raised by the complainant against him.  According to 1^st OP the product was properly packed and delivered to the complainant’s premises with utmost care and at the time of laying the tile, also there were no defect seen.  OP contended that the tiles supplied were of superior quality and defect free.  It is also submitted that only after one month of laying  the tiles they could  see the  fading  of colour between the gap of  two tiles.  That could itself  clearly  proves that the  defect was occurred  due to  the defective laying  of tiles by an inexperienced  masonry work.  The fact is that the stain is coming out from  the underneath of tiles which the filling of gap is  not properly done at the time of laying and also it can be a manufacturing defect.  It is  also submitted that  the 1^st OP is only the retailer and 2^nd OP is the wholesaler and if the tiles have any defects, same might be the manufacturing defects for which  the  manufacturer  alone is responsible.  According to 1^st OP, OPs 1&2 have no liability  over it.

    Though  1^st OP submitted the above said contentions, 1^st OP admitted that there was colour fade happened to the tiles in dispute.  The Advocate commissioner also observed the defect in the  tiles.  Here the OP failed to prove their contention that the colour fading was happened from the side of workers of complainant who laid the tiles in the complainant’s premises.  1^st OP further contended  that if there is manufacturing defect in the tiles, 3^rd OP manufacturer alone responsible for the deficiency in service.  This contention of OPs 1&2 cannot be accepted.  After selling defective product  to the customers, the trader cannot wash off his hand by putting the entire liability to the manufacturer.  So, from the entire evidence, we are of the view that the tiles  supplied to 1^st OP belong to 3^rd OP, and it was defective.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 to 3 and  OPs 1 to 3 are  held liable to redress the grievance of the complainant.

    In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Here  the complainant has not submitted the expenses to be incurred for laying  new tiles and from the Advocate commissioner report, no major defect was observed.  Considering the entire facts, we are inclined to allow a total  of Rs.75,000/- towards expenses   for replacing  the defective tiles with new one and its  work and also compensation.  So Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.75,000/- to the  complainant together with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this case.  Opposite parties  1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.75,000/- + Rs.10,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of  the certified copy of this order.  Failing which Rs.75,000/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Estimate and visiting card

A2- lawyer notice

C1- Commission report

B1& B1- Tax invoices Nos.B992,B,987

PW1- Jayagopal.K.K-complainant

DW1-Muhammed Afsal.S.M- 1^st OP

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR