Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are doing the business of manufacturing of floor tiles and other various tiles and selling the same in the name and style of Kajaria Ceramics. Opposite Party No.1 is the dealer of said Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and selling their floor tiles and other tiles. The Complainant alleges that in the month of September, 2015 he alongwith his son Satwinder Pal Singh went to the shop of Opposite Party No.1 to purchase floor tiles for his house and the owner of Opposite Party No.1 suggested the Complainant to purchase the floor tiles of Kajaria Ceramics as the same are of very high quality and also assured to the Complainant that in case, any defect would arise in the floor tiles in future, then floor tiles will be replaced with new one without any cost. On the assurance of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant purchased the HD floor tiles of Kajaria Ceramics of premium quality from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice Numbers 7656 dated 05.09.2015, 7980 dated 11.09.2015, 9040 dated 02.10.2015 and 9621 dated 10.10.2015. Besides this, all the other material required for installation of floor tiles also purchased from Opposite Party No.1. After passing of 6-7 months of installation of above said floor tiles, the Complainant noticed that floor tiles of Kitchen started losing its colour and shine and also noticed white marks on the surface of tiles and also felt slippery at some places. After passing 1-2 months, the Complainant noticed that the problem is increasing day by day to other rooms too. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and they assured the Complainant that he had no need to worry and the employees of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 would check the problem after visiting the spot and if they found any problem they will replace the floor tiles with new one. Thereafter, the employees of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 visited the house of the Complainant and after due inspection, they disclosed to the Complainant that the defect is occurred in the floor tiles due to manufacturing and they will  report the matter to the company. After few days, some other employees of Opposite Parties again visited the house of the Complainant and took sample of tile from the surplus tiles lying in the house of the Complainant. But after passing 3-4 months period and after calling them 25 to 30 times, they did not listen. However, on 14.3.2017 Mr.Mohit Dhiman alognwith an employee of Opposite Party No.1 visited the house of the Complainant and offered to solve the matter by changing the defective tiles  from Premium to Commercial and the difference, if any, will be paid to the Complainant, which was refused by the Complainant. Thereafter, on 15.3.2017 the Complainant sent e-mail to Tarun Gupta, Manager of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. In reply to that e-mail, he narrated a strange reason and replied that floor tiles damaged due to dust and sand partials and the sample reports have shown excess use of chemical, but in reality the sample was taken from the loose unused pieces of tiles  and not from the damaged floor. In the said e-mail, he also made an offer that he can arrange compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that the Complainant purchased the floor tiles of same quality for his whole house and out of which tiles installed in the two rooms of first floor have only 5-10% of defect, because these  two rooms are not used frequently by the family of the Complainant, while all other rooms of ground floor are facing the same problem, which is clearly a case of manufacturing defect. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties did not listen to the request of the Complainant.  This type of behavior of the Opposite Parties is totally unprofessional and they are doing Unfair Trade Practice. On 04.08.2017 Mr.Pardeep Garg, Civil Engineer visited the spot and given his report  regarding replacement of defective floor tiles with new one. He estimated the cost of Rs.1,45,754/- for installation of new floor tiles.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no other efficacious remedy available to the Complainant except to approach this Commission by filing the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.   Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,49,254/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 16.3.2017 till its realization.   

b)      The amount of Rs.50,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of mental tension, harassment and emotional distress suffered by the Complainant due to negligent and unprofessional conduct and working of the officials of the Opposite Parties.

c)       The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.11,000/- may please be allowed.

d)      And any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit be granted.       

2.       Opposite Parties  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the Complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and the Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission. On merits, it is alleged that no dealer of the company ever forced any person to purchase the product of Opposite Party. Opposite Party Kajaria Ceramics is well known Nationally and Internationally for their products and have acquired reputation in goodwill because of their quality and durability of its products and the products of Opposite Parties are very famous and all the standards have been kept in mind while manufacturing the products by the  company and before sending them in market, the products of the company have been tested through various measures and after all satisfaction the products of the company  have been sent into the market. The Complainant has only purchased the tiles of the company and no installation material has been purchased as narrated.  However, after  installation of the tiles approximately after one year of the installation, the Complainant lodged the complaint and immediately after the receipt of the complaint, the representatives of the company visited the spot on three occasions  and inspected the tiles and took the sample of the tiles which were got duly tested from the laboratory and there was no manufacturing defect at all in the tiles and if any alleged defect was there, the same was due to the lot of dust, grits sand partials in the said area as on the one hand, it seems that the construction work was going on after the installation of the tiles  as well as in the surrounding area the constructions of the roads were going on and the Complainant did  not care for the same and moreover, it was observed that the chemical which was used by the Complainant was of a low standard as well as it has been applied accessibly and the Complainant has not mentioned in his complaint regarding the chemical with which he has fixed the tiles on the floor.  The sample of tiles taken from the house of the Complainant has duly been analysed in the laboratory and the same was found to be the quality of international standard and certificate to the effect has been attached with this reply. All the instructions have been printed on each and every box in a bold manner and all the customers were duly instructed for these instructions and moreover, it appears that the mason who had laid the tiles, did not apply his skill in the right and proper manner and the material used for laying the tiles was also of sub standard quality. Moreover, the company always wants to promote their customers and he has got all care for his customers and only for this purposes, the employees of the company told  the Complainant that if he does agree then he can tough to the management for taking the matter sympathetically and to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.22,000/- in a special case for the reputation of the company as the company never wants to loose a single  customer, but however, there was no defect of any kind in the tiles laid by the Complainant in his house and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the  affidavit of Satwinder Pal Singh attorney Ex.C1, affidavit of Ganga Ram Ex.C2, affidavit of Pardeep Garg Ex.C3, copy of power of attorney Ex.C4,  copies of bills Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, copy of e-mail Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, copy of legal notice Ex.C11, copy of reply of letter Ex.C12, copies of estimate Ex.C13 & Ex.C14.    

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Mohit Dhiman, Manager of Kajaria Ceramics Ex.OP1, copy of technical specification Ex.OP2, copy of instructions Ex.OP3.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties  have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively.   Ld.counsel for the Complainant has argued that the Complainant purchased the HD floor tiles of Kajaria Ceramics of premium quality from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice Numbers 7656 dated 05.09.2015, 7980 dated 11.09.2015, 9040 dated 02.10.2015 and 9621 dated 10.10.2015, copies of the bills are placed on record as Ex.C5 to Ex.C8. It is also not disputed that all the other material required for installation of floor tiles also purchased from Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that after passing of 6-7 months of installation of above said floor tiles, the Complainant noticed that floor tiles of Kitchen started losing its colour and shine and also noticed white marks on the surface of tiles and also felt slippery at some places. After passing 1-2 months, the Complainant noticed that the problem is increasing day by day to other rooms too. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and they assured the Complainant that he had no need to worry and the employees of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 would check the problem after visiting the spot and if they found any problem they will replace the floor tiles with new one. Thereafter, the employees of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 visited the house of the Complainant and after due inspection, they disclosed to the Complainant that the defect is occurred in the floor tiles due to manufacturing and they will  report the matter to the company. Ld.counsel for the Complainant further contended that after few days, some other employees of Opposite Parties again visited the house of the Complainant and took sample of tile from the surplus tiles lying in the house of the Complainant. But after passing 3-4 months period and after calling them 25 to 30 times, they did not listen. However, on 14.3.2017 Mr.Mohit Dhiman alongwith an employee of Opposite Party No.1 visited the house of the Complainant and offered to solve the matter by changing the defective tiles  from Premium to Commercial and the difference, if any, will be paid to the Complainant, which was refused by the Complainant. Thereafter, on 15.3.2017 the Complainant sent e-mail to Tarun Gupta, Manager of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. In reply to that e-mail, he narrated a strange reason and replied that floor tiles damaged due to dust and sand partials and the sample reports have shown excess use of chemical, but in reality the sample was taken from the loose unused pieces of tiles  and not from the damaged floor. In the said e-mail, he also made an offer that he can arrange compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the Complainant, copy of e-mail sent by he Opposite Parties is placed on record as Ex.C9. Further contended that thereafter, the Opposite Parties did not listen to the request of the Complainant.  This type of behavior of the Opposite Parties is totally unprofessional and they are doing Unfair Trade Practice. On 04.08.2017 Mr.Pardeep Garg, Civil Engineer visited the spot and given his report  regarding replacement of defective floor tiles with new one. He estimated the cost of Rs.1,45,754/- for installation of new floor tiles, copy of report is Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and hence, the  deficiency is alleged on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that Opposite Party Kajaria Ceramics is well known Nationally and Internationally for their products and have acquired reputation in goodwill because of their quality and durability of its products and the products of Opposite Parties are very famous and all the standards have been kept in mind while manufacturing the products by the  company and before sending them in market, the products of the company have been tested through various measures and after all satisfaction the products of the company  have been sent into the market. Further contended that the  Complainant has only purchased the tiles of the company and no installation material has been purchased as narrated.  However, after  installation of the tiles approximately after one year of the installation, the Complainant lodged the complaint and immediately after the receipt of the complaint, the representatives of the company visited the spot on three occasions  and inspected the tiles and took the sample of the tiles which were got duly tested from the laboratory and there was no manufacturing defect at all in the tiles and if any alleged defect was there, the same was due to the lot of dust, grits sand partials in the said area as on the one hand, it seems that the construction work was going on after the installation of the tiles  as well as in the surrounding area the constructions of the roads were going on and the Complainant did  not care for the same and moreover, it was observed that the chemical which was used by the Complainant was of a low standard as well as it has been applied accessibly and the Complainant has not mentioned in his complaint regarding the chemical with which he has fixed the tiles on the floor.  The sample of tiles taken from the house of the Complainant has duly been analysed in the laboratory and the same was found to be the quality of international standard and certificate to the effect has been attached with this reply. All the instructions have been printed on each and every box in a bold manner and all the customers were duly instructed for these instructions and moreover, it appears that the mason who had laid the tiles, did not apply his skill in the right and proper manner and the material used for laying the tiles was also of sub standard quality. Moreover, the company always wants to promote their customers and he has got all care for his customers and only for this purposes, the employees of the company told  the Complainant that if he does agree then he can tough to the management for taking the matter sympathetically and to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.22,000/- in a special case for the reputation of the company as the company never wants to loose a single  customer, but however, there was no defect of any kind in the tiles laid by the Complainant in his house and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8.       It is not disputed that the Complainant purchased the HD floor tiles of Kajaria Ceramics of premium quality from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice Numbers 7656 dated 05.09.2015, 7980 dated 11.09.2015, 9040 dated 02.10.2015 and 9621 dated 10.10.2015, copies of the bills are placed on record as Ex.C5 to Ex.C8. It is also not disputed that all the other material required for installation of floor tiles also purchased from Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that after passing of 6-7 months of installation of above said floor tiles, the Complainant noticed that floor tiles of Kitchen started losing its colour and shine and also noticed white marks on the surface of tiles and also felt slippery at some places. Not only this, after passing 1-2 months, the Complainant noticed that the problem is increasing day by day to other rooms too. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and they assured the Complainant that he had no need to worry and the employees of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 would check the problem after visiting the spot and if they found any problem they will replace the floor tiles with new one. Thereafter, the employees of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 visited the house of the Complainant and after due inspection, they disclosed to the Complainant that the defect is occurred in the floor tiles due to manufacturing and they will  report the matter to the company. Ld.counsel for the Complainant further contended that after few days, some other employees of Opposite Parties again visited the house of the Complainant and took sample of tile from the surplus tiles lying in the house of the Complainant. But after passing 3-4 months period and after calling them 25 to 30 times, they did not listen. However, on 14.3.2017 Mr.Mohit Dhiman alongwith an employee of Opposite Party No.1 visited the house of the Complainant and offered to solve the matter by changing the defective tiles  from Premium to Commercial and the difference, if any, will be paid to the Complainant, which was refused by the Complainant. Thereafter, on 15.3.2017 the Complainant sent e-mail to Tarun Gupta, Manager of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. In reply to that e-mail, he narrated a strange reason and replied that floor tiles damaged due to dust and sand partials and the sample reports have shown excess use of chemical, but in reality the sample was taken from the loose unused pieces of tiles  and not from the damaged floor. In the said e-mail, he also made an offer that he can arrange compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the Complainant, copy of e-mail sent by he Opposite Parties is placed on record as Ex.C9. Further contended that thereafter, the Opposite Parties did not listen to the request of the Complainant.  Not only this, on 04.08.2017 Mr.Pardeep Garg, Civil Engineer visited the spot and given his report  regarding replacement of defective floor tiles with new one. He estimated the cost of Rs.1,45,754/- for installation of new floor tiles, copy of report is Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and hence, the  deficiency is alleged on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, no specific plea has been taken to prove their defence, but however, Mr.Mohit Dhiman, Manager of the Opposite Parties in his  e-mail sent to the Complainant made an offer to make good the loss by arranging compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the Complainant, copy of e-mail sent by he Opposite Parties is placed on record as Ex.C9.  The first plea taken by the Opposite Parties is that the   floor tiles are damaged due to dust and sand partials and the sample reports have shown excess use of chemical but however, it is admitted that the  sample was taken from the loose unused pieces of tiles  and not from the damaged floor and hence we do not agreed with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, as per the version, if the tiles sold by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant are of good quality and if there was no defect of any kind, then why the Opposite Parties made an offer to the Complainant to make good his loss on account of tiles. Hence, there must be deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which proves the intention of the Opposite Parties. Not only this,  all the other material required for installation of floor tiles also purchased by the Complainant  from Opposite Party No.1 and it can not be said that  the said material used by the Complainant for installation of the floor tiles are of low quality. It is also not denied by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant  purchased the floor tiles of same quality for his whole house and out of which tiles installed in the two rooms of first floor have only 5-10% of defect, because these  two rooms are not used frequently by the family of the Complainant, while all other rooms of ground floor are facing the same problem, which is clearly a case of manufacturing defect. If the Complainant was having bad intention, he could say that all the installed tiles are defective, but he specifically stated that the out of the purchased tiles, the tiles which are installed in the two rooms of first floor have only 5-10% of defect, because these  two rooms are not used frequently by the family of the Complainant.  On the other hand, Opposite Parties have not specifically denied the aforesaid contention of the Complainant by producing some cogent and convincing evidence.     

9.       There can be no doubt that the complainant has suffered the inconvenience and discomfort on account of those defective tiles laid in his newly constructed house.  So, the opposite parties are to be made liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony, inconvenience and discomfort suffered by the complainant.  The opposite parties are also liable and answerable for the deficiency in service on their part in effecting sale of  defective inferior quality tiles to the Complainant by charging the amount of premium quality. In view of this, we found deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties jointly and severally.

10.     It is not disputed that the Complainant has purchased the tiles alongwith its material from Opposite Party No.1 worth Rs.1,54,670/- vide invoice Numbers 7656 dated 05.09.2015, 7980 dated 11.09.2015, 9040 dated 02.10.2015 and 9621 dated 10.10.2015 Ex.C5 to Ex.C8). But however. Sh.Pardeep Garg, Civil Engineer of Garg Building Planner, Approved by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Municipal Corporation, Moga vide its report dated 04.08.2017 Ex.C14) has made the abstract of costs amounting to Rs.1,45,754 (say Rs.145,000/-), but however, there is no gold scale to assess the actual loss to the Complainant in this regard, but however, certainly the Complainant has suffered loss to which we  tentatively assess the same at Rs.1 lakh.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Opposite Parties joint and severally to make good the loss caused to the Complainant and make the compensation amounting to Rs.1 lakh (One lakh only) alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.09.2017 till its realization. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay costs of litigation amounting to Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) to the Complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Commission since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Bhatinda as well as  Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.   Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 12.03.2021.