DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of December, 2022
C.C. 108/2013
Complainant
Viju. C. D.,
S/o Devassikutty,
Cheruvathoor House,
P.O. Peruvannamuzhi, Kozhikode.
(By Adv. Sri. P.T. Rajesh)
Opposite Parties
- The Manager, Tilco (branch)
Door No. 4.1223, Wood land building,
Beach Road, Kozhikode – 673 020.
- The Manager,
SOMANY CERAMICS LTD,
No. 82/19, BHAKKERWARA ROAD,
Mundka, New Delhi – 110041.
Delhi – India.
(By Adv. Sri. Youseph. M )
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 05/04/2012 the complainant purchased premium quality tiles from the shop of the first opposite party. The tiles were manufactured by the second opposite party. The total price was Rs. 96,021/-. At the time of purchasing the tiles, the first opposite party made the complainant believe that the tiles were of superior quality and the best available in the market. After the tiles were laid in the floor of the house, it was noticed that there was colour variation on the tiles. On noticing the same, the complainant contacted the first opposite party. A representative of the second opposite party visited the premises and agreed to settle the dispute. But nothing happened thereafter. On 14/12/2012 the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the first opposite party. But no positive action was taken to redress his grievance. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant was put to severe mental agony and hardship. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to do the tile work using new tiles at their expense or in the alternative, pay the cost of the tiles and laying expenses. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also claimed for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
3. The opposite parties filed separate written versions wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them. Their contentions are almost similar. According to them, the complainant selected the tiles according to his choice. There is no such colour variation as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had to engage skilled workers for laying the tiles and further he had to follow the instructions before the tiles were laid. Superior quality of raw-materials should be used for laying the tiles and that was not done. If at all there is any colour variation, it was due to the poor workmanship and accessories used. No colour variation could be found by the officials of the company when they visited the site. The allegations in the lawyer notice are false and baseless. During inspection, it was found that the grout applied between the tiles was coming out and the same was formed on the tiles. The technical expert cleaned the tiles surface with the hot water to remove entrapped dust. The grout fixed between the tiles is not of fine quality. Except for the said complaint, there is no other defect or manufacturing defect in the tiles. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1, A2, A2(a), A3 and A4 on the side of the complainant. The expert report was marked as Ext C1. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
6. Both sides filed argument notes.
7. Point No. 1 : The complainant has approached this Commission with the allegation that after laying the tiles purchased from the first opposite party, colour variation was noticed and despite contacting the first opposite party, no positive action was taken to redress his grievance. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the tiles, who was subsequently impleaded. The prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite parties to do the tile work at their expense or in the alternative, pay the cost of the tiles and laying charges and also compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
8. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the invoice dated 05/04/2012 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant which shows that he had purchased the tiles in question and other items worth Rs. 96,021/- from the first opposite party. The price of Nano Tesla 605 x 605 tiles (99 boxes) is Rs. 75243.65/-. The purchase of the tiles is not disputed by the opposite parties.
9. PW1 has deposed that after laying, it was noticed that there was colour variation in the tiles. Ext C1 is the report prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub-Division, Koyilandy after inspecting the site. The site was inspected on 14/12/2018 in the presence of both parties. The learned expert has reported that there is difference in the shade of the tiles. The difference in the shade of the tiles is visible in all the rooms. It is clearly stated in Ext C1 that the difference in the shade of the laid tiles is distinct and visible and there is shabby appearance for the floor. There is no reason to disbelieve or discard Ext C1. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext C1 would prove that the grievance of the complainant is genuine.
10. The contention of the opposite parties is that there is no such colour variation and if at all there was any such defect, it was due to poor workmanship and the poor quality of the accessories used for laying the tiles. The fact that there is colour variation which made the floor look shabby is proved by Ext C1. The contention that the defect was due to poor workmanship and inferior quality of the accessories used is not supported by any evidence. Ext C1 does not support the contention of the opposite parties.
11. The difference in the shade occurring after paving of the tiles apparently denotes manufacturing defects. A Consumer may not be having the technical knowledge regarding the quality of the tiles. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to supply good quality and Pukka similar tiles. Eventhough the matter was informed to the first opposite party, no positive steps were taken to redress the grievance of the complainant. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The cost of tiles is Rs. 75,243/-. It is reported in Ext C1 that the laying charges amounts to Rs. 78,045/- as per PWD rates. The opposite parties are liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,53,288/- being the price of the tiles and cost of laying. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to mental agony and hardship due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of proceedings.
12. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 108/2013 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,53,288/- (Rupees One lakh fifty three thousand two hundred and eighty eight only) to the complainant towards the price of the tiles and cost of laying.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e) The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 1,53,288/- shall carry an interest of 6% p.a from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of December, 2022.
Date of Filing: 14/03/2013.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Invoice dated 05/04/2012.
Ext. A2 – Lawyer notice dated – 14/12/2012.
Ext. A2(a) - Postal receipt.
Ext. A3 – Postal acknowledgement card.
Ext. A4 – Photos and CD’s.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Viju. C.D (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Commission Exhibits
Ext. C1 – Expert’s report.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
