DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of June 2024
Filed on: 05/08/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 643/2016
COMPLAINANT
Shibi T. John, S/o.Mathew John, residing at Thoppil Villa, Karichal Payipad, Veeyapuram, Alappuzha, Kerala-690 514
(By Adv.K.P.Abdul Rassak & Nadeesha Rassak, Rajalekshmi Vineetha, 1st Floor, Haseena Building, opp. JFCM Court-Kalamassery, Changampuzha Nagar P.O., South Kalamassery)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Vinayaka Traders, 243/401-1, Krishnakripa, Panakkatt Temple, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam.
- Monier Roofing pvt. Ltd., Building No.34/544 D, NH By-pass Road, Padivattom, Near Oberon Mall, Edappally, Cochin-24, Rep. by Sales Manager, Mr.Rajesh M.
- Monier Roofs for Living, 143 C 3, Bomassandra Industrial Area, Phase, I, Bangalore-560 099, Rep. by its Manager, Mr.Kishor Kumar.
(Ops 2 and 3 rep. by Adv.C.Anilkumar, Arun Prasanth C, Sreesadan, Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi-17)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This consumer complaint is filed by Shibi TJohn, Thoppil Villa, Karichal, Payipad, Alappuzha against Vinayaka Agencies, as the 1st opposite party along with others alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant stated in the complaint that he was impressed by the advertisement of the 3rd opposite party regarding their tile in Designer + Builder Magazine in the year 2009 October and 2010 July. In which they advertised about the anti-fading quality and durability of the tiles. The complainant visited the manufacturing unit of the opposite party at Bangalore, then also the opposite party, made the complainant believe that the tiles are of superior quality and will survive any climate without any colour fading and damage and assured its durability. Believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant decided to purchase the tiles on 2011. The opposite party had sent email dated 03.04.2011 making offer for their best price. They had further guaranteed regarding the anti-colour fading quality of the tiles. The complainant purchased 2520 tiles from the opposite party on 10.06.2011 having anti colour fading. The opposite party had delivered and paved the tiles. But immediately after laying the tiles, the coating of the tiles had been damaged in four places. The complainant reported the same by sending email dated 02.07.011. On 03.07.2011 the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the complaint was forwarded to 3rd opposite party. Complainant sents reminders on 07.08.2011, 20.08.2011 and 27.08.2011.
It is submitted that, a technical staff came to the site and inspected the tiles and reported to the 3rd opposite party that tile coating was damaged during manufacturing and cutting process and 1800 tiles need to be replaced. Opposite party assured that, whole 1800 tiles will be replaced and immediately they replaced 900 tiles. Based on the report 900 tiles was replaced on January 2012. But the complainant had to pay the laying charges. The complaint still persisted and the complainant made other mails to the opposite parties, but there was no response. Thus on 14.01.2016 the complainant sents email to replace the balance 900 tiles. As there was no response the complainant made another mail on 03.10.2016. But there was no response from their side. Therefore, the complainant approached the Commission praying for issuing orders to the opposite parties to replace entire defective tiles after removing defective tiles paved in the roof top of the complainant’s house without further cost to the complainant and other reliefs.
- Notice
Upon notice from the Commission, the opposite parties 2 and 3 entered in to appearance and filed their written statement of version. The opposite party 1 was called absent and had not filed their version and therefore set ex-parte.
- Version of the opposite parties.
In the joint version the opposite parties it is contended that the Monier Roofing Private Limited is a Private Limited Company registered under Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing roofing systems.The 2nd opposite party is the Sales Office in Ernakulam, Kerala.The 1st opposite party was one among the retailers of the Company.The roofing system manufactured and marketed by the Monier Roofing Pvt. Ltd are concrete roof tiles as well as glazed and non-glazed clay tiles, its fittings and roof components.The company is having two manufacturing units one at Bangalore and another at Nashik.
The manufacturing units of the Monier Roofing Pvt. Limited are maintaining high technical standards so as to manufacture and market superior quality roofing systems. These opposite parties are using most modern and internationally acclaimed technology for manufacturing their products.These opposite parties are not aware of the contentions made in paragraph 4 of the complaint.It appears from the averment that the complainant had purchased the products manufactured by these opposite parties after satisfying himself with his personal visit to the manufacturing unit of the Monier Roofing Pvt. Limited in Bangalore.Even though the products of these opposite parties are of superior quality, guarantee for any specific period is not offered by the Company.The Company is striving to maintain consistency of colour to their roofing tiles, but 100% consistency in colour cannot be assured in tiles manufactured in different batches due to various factors.But as far as the durability and anti-fading properties of the tiles are concerned, the tiles manufactured by the Monier Roofing Pvt. Ltd. are superior quality products.
- Evidence
The complainant produced Exbt.A1 to A14 and C1 which is the report of Advocate Commissioner is also marked from the side of the complainant. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and DW1 was cross examined by the complainant and depositions recorded.
The Commission verified the complainant, version and all the other documents produced from either side of parties and also the report of the Advocate Commissioner the following are the main points to be analysed.
- The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
Point No. (i)
The main allegation of the complainant is that he was impressed by the advertisement of the 3rd opposite party regarding their tile in Designer + Builder Magazine in the year 2009 October and 2010 July in which they advertised about the anti-fading quality and durability of the tiles. The complainant visited the manufacturing unit of the opposite party at Bangalore, then also the opposite party, made the complainant believe that the tiles are of superior quality and will survive any climate without any colour fading and damage and assured its durability. Believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant decided to purchase the tiles on 2011. The opposite party had sent email dated 03.04.2011 making offer for their best price. They had further guaranteed regarding the anti-colour fading quality of the tiles. The complainant purchased 2520 tiles from the opposite party on 10.06.2011 have anti colour fading. The opposite party had delivered and paved the tiles. But immediately after laying the tiles, the coating of the tiles has been damaged in four places. The complainant reported the same by sending email dated 02.07.011. On 03.07.2011 the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the complaint forwarded to 3rd opposite party. Complainant sends reminders on 07.08.2011, 20.08.2011 and 27.08.2011.
It is submitted that, a technical staff came to the site and inspected the tiles and reported to the 3rd opposite party that tile coating was damaged during manufacturing and cutting process and 1800 tiles need to be replaced. Opposite party assured that, whole 1800 tiles will be replaced and immediately they replaced 900 tiles. Based on the report 900 tiles were replaced on January 2012. But the complainant had to pay the laying charges. But the complaint still persisted and the complainant made other mails to the opposite parties, but there was no response. Thus on 14.01.2016 the complainant sends email to replace the balance 900 tiles. As there was no response the complainant made another mail on 03.10.2016. But there was no response from their side.
It is alleged that he had purchased 2520 tiles from the opposite party on 10.06.2011 which is anti-colour fading. The opposite parties had delivered and paved the tiles but immediately after laying the tiles the coating of the tiles has been damaged in four places. The technical staffs of the opposite party inspected the tiles and reported to the 3rd opposite party that tile coating was damaged during manufacturing – during process and 1800 tiles need to be replaced. Based on the report 900 tiles were replaced by the opposite party. The complainant had paid the laying charges.
At the time of purchase, the opposite parties had assured that colour coating is made with modern technology on wet tiles and the document No. (1) is produced by the complainant to this effect.
From the deposition given by DW1 in box the point is noted as follows:
Q. നിങ്ങൾ തെളിവ് സത്യവാങ് മൂലത്തിലും, written statement ലും നിങ്ങളുടെ product durability ഉള്ളതും anti fading properties ഉള്ള superior product ആണ് എന്നും പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ ?
A. Superior quality product ആണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. പക്ഷെ anti fading ആണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല.
The Commission also verified the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Commission and from that it can be seen that Advocate Commissioner is also convinced that the tiles paved were got damaged and colour was faded. The overall verification of documents produced from both side and analysis of entire history of case reveals that the opposite parties had supplied inferior quality of tiles to the complainant and therefore the complainant had undergone deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the opposite parties. Therefore point No. (i) is found in favour of the complainant. Hence the following orders are issued.
- Since the complaint pertains to the year 2016 and cause of action related to the complaint pertains to the year 2011, the Commission issues orders to the opposite party to reimburse the amount of Rs.16000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) paid by the complainant as laying charges for replacing 900 tiles.
- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) shall be paid by the opposite parties to complainant as compensation.
- The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
- The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.
The above order shall be comply with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which amount ordered vide (1) and (2) above shall carry interest @7.25% from the date of order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 28th day of June 2024.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainants’ Evidence
Exbt. A1- copy of letter issued by the 1st opposite party dated 03.04.2011
Exbt.A2 e-mail sent from 1st opposite party dated 07.04.2011
Exbt.A3 - e-mail sent the 1st opposite party by the complainant dated 23.04.2011
Exbt.A4 Bill invoice No.65 dated 10.07.2011 issued by the 1st opposite party.
Exbt.A5 Bill invoice No.108 dated 13.07.2011 issued by the 1st opposite party.
Exbt.A6 Email sent to opposite parties by the complainant dated 02.07.2011
Exbt.A7 email sent to the opposite parties by the complainant dated 09.07.2011
Exbt.A8 Reply by 1st opposite party through email dated 10.07.2011
Exbt.A9 email sent to the opposite parties by the complainant dated 07.08.2011
Exbt.A10 Reply by the 1st opposite party through email dated 07.08.2011
Exbt.A11 email sent to the opposite parties by the complainant dated 20.08.2011
Exbt.A12 email sent to the 2nd opposite parties by the complainant dated 14.01.2016
Exbt.A13 email sent to the opposite parties by the complainant dated 03.08.2016
Exbt.A14 Certificate of Sec.35B of Indian Evidence Act.
Opposite party’s evidence : Nil
Exbt.C1 - Commission Reports
Date of Despatch :: By Hand :: By Post
uk
