1.Case of the complainant:-
On 10/07/2017 complainant had purchased tiles for his newly constructed house from Touch Stone Group at Pathapiriyam. After laying the tiles, Complainant found some stains in the tiles within one year and 4 months. The alleged colour variation was due to the poor quality of tiles, thereafter complainant informed these facts to opposite parties but they did not rectify the defects.
2. Thereafter complainant contacted the executive of the company who were the manufacturers of the tiles, and they intimated the complainant that the two containers of tiles had manufacturing defects and they had already refunded the amount of that tiles to opposite party No.1 and 2. Then opposite party No.1 and 2 had sold that tiles which had manufacturing defects to complainant and others. Thereafter also complainant approached opposite party No.1 and 2 , but they did not changed the tiles with new one. Hence this complaint.
3. Claim of the complainant is that he is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him by the act of opposite parties and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they appeared before the commission through their counsel and filed version. Opposite party No.1 filed version for and on behalf of opposite party No.2 also.
5. In their version they stated that complaint is unsustainable under law. There is no cause of action to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. They again stated that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Complainant purchased the tiles on 10/07/2017 and the complaint is filed only on 11/04/2019. They again stated that even if there is any defect for the tiles, the manufacturer is the apt person to be answered. They are only the distributer of the product hence they are opposite parties are unnecessary parties in the matter.
6. They again stated that the averments in the complaint that the work is completed after four month of the purchase is false. The purchase made by the complainant just after 7 days of the earlier purchase by invoice No.EDV B 595 dated 18/07/2017 shows that the work has been completed by a week. The second purchase is lesser quantity to fill up the vacant portion after utilising the tiles of earlier purchase. They again denied that there were some fading of colour and ejection of certain colours from the tiles . It is all for the complainant to prove the same by taking out a Commission. Opposite parties again stated that complaint filed by complainant is by suppressing the material facts. Actually the manufacturer had inspected the premises and no defects are noticed. The manufacturer convinced the complainant about the same. That may be the reason for not adding the manufacturer in the proceedings.
7. Opposite parties again contented that complainant had not purchased the tiles of 800 x 300 Rich pearl jet white for an amount of Rs. 70,000/-. The invoice No. EDV B 525 dated 10/07/2017 and EDV B 595 dated 18/07/2017 reveals that the purchase made by complainant of the above said tiles is only for Rs. 34,516/- only. More over total quality purchased by the complainant is only about 500 Sqft. The total cost for laying the same will be less than Rs. 10,000/- and the averments that the complainant had spent a sum of Rs. 70,000/- for laying the tiles is false.
8. They also alleges that the manufacturer had taken out the photographs of the laid tiles and the premises of the complainant. The same shows that there are no defects for the tiles. It is the duty of the complainant to take out a Commission with the aid of an expert to inspect the premises and to file a detailed report regarding the condition of the tiles, the defects if any , the cause of the defect etc with photographs and other materials damaged to the ceramic tiles may be caused due to improper work , use of substandard materials , lack of watering etc. In order to ascertain the above defects, aid of an expert is required. Complainant is duty bound to avail the aid of an expert in this regard.
9. Opposite parties again contented that large quantities of tiles of the same batch of the same lot has already been distributed by them to various customers and none of them raised any complaint regarding the tiles so far. It is also necessary to take out a Commission to examine the premises of the said customers in order to ascertain that the tiles of the lot have not generated any complaints.
10. Complainant filed this complaint at the instance of some persons who are inimical with this opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 10/07/2017 given by opposite parties to complainant. Ext.A2 is the copy of retail invoice dated 18/07/2017 given by opposite parties to complainant. Thereafter opposite parties filed their affidavit and the argument notes, but not documents filed by them.
12. Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- Whether complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed.
- Reliefs and cost.
13. Point No. 1 to 3
On 10/07/2017 complainant had purchased tiles for his newly constructed house from Touch Stone Group at Pathapiriyam. Complainant found some stains in the tiles within one year and 4 months. The alleged colour variation was due to the poor quality of tiles, thereafter complainant informed these facts to opposite parties but they did not rectify the defects.
14. The main contention raised by opposite party No.1 and 2 is that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. But that contention is not correct because complainant purchased the tiles on 10/07/2017 and he filed this complaint on 11/04/2019. That means the complainant has filed this complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Hence question of limitation does not arise.
15. Another contention of opposite parties are that this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and they provided the address of the manufacturer of the tiles . But complainant did not take any step to implead the manufacturer in the proceedings. Another contention raised by opposite parties are that complainant filed this complaint by suppressing some facts that complainant provided an intimation to the manufacturer regarding his dissatisfaction and the manufacturer had inspected the premises and did not find any defect. The manufacturer convinced the complainant about the same. Another contention of opposite parties are that complainant purchased the tiles worth Rs. 34516/- only from them and the cost of laying the same will be less than Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed by giving false allegations. Another contention is that the manufacturer had taken some photographs of the laid tiles and the premises of the complainant and which shows no defects for the tiles. But they did not produce that photographs before the Commission.
16. But the above contentions raised by opposite parties were negligible. But the main question is whether there is any expert report to show that the tiles given by opposite parties to complainant are defective. More over complainant even not filed one photograph which shows the present condition of tiles and the stains in the tiles. No documents and photographs produced before the Commission which reveals the stains in the tiles. Complainant only mentioned in his complaint and affidavit that some of the tiles laid in his house were discoloured and having stains on it and the colour faded within one year. However complainant did not produce documents to convince the Commission that the tiles which had given by opposite parties to complainant were substandard quality.
17. Moreover complainant can file a petition to appoint an Expert to show the present condition of the tiles in complainant’s house. No steps taken by complainant to appoint a Commissioner or an Expert. With the help of an Expert commissioner, he can file a detailed report regarding the condition of tiles, the defects found and the cause of the defects etc. Moreover complainant not mentioned what are the actual defects caused to the tiles and the intensity of the defects. No photographs and no documents produced by complainant before this Commission to show the intensity of the defects caused. Moreover complainant did not implead the manufacturer of the tiles as a party to this complaint. Opposite parties mentioned the full address of the manufacturer in their version and affidavit. From the above facts we are on the opinion that complainant is failed to prove his case with photographs, documents and Expert opinion. We are unable to ascertain the defect mentioned in the complaint. From Ext.A1&A2 documents, it is clear that complainant had purchased tiles from opposite parties, but he failed to prove what are the defects caused to the tiles. Hence complaint dismissed.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2022.
