DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 9th day of June 2010 .
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.101/2007
D. Swaminathan S/o. Late K.S. Dharmarajan 2/440, Mani Iyyer Street Old Kalpathy Palakkad . - Complainant (Adv. P.Sreeprakash) V/s
1. Ajantha Manufacturing Ltd 'ORPAT NAGAR', 8-A, National Highway Tal, Bachau, Village Vandhiya P.O. Sanakhiyari – 370 150 District Kutch, Gujarath (Adv.V.Raghuvaran & C.Mohanram) 2. K.A.V. Shaik Rowther 31/671, Market Road Palakkad. - Opposite parties (Adv.V.Raghuvaran & C.Mohanram) O R D E R By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair
Complainant has constructed a residential house at Kalpathy, Palakkad. During October 2006 except tile work all other works were over. While the complainant was in search of a best quality vitrified tile he has come across advertisements in magazines and visual media regarding the first opposite party's product OREVA 2 X 2 VITRIFIED tiles. Advertisements made by first opposite parties was more than sufficient to create an impression in the mind of the customer that the product is the best one available in the market and is free from defects. The goodwill and reputation of AJANTHA was another factor, influenced the complainant in taking decision regarding the tiles. Complainant contacted the second opposite party who is the dealer of the above mentioned product. Second opposite party also assured that these tiles are free from defects and is the best available in the market. Under these circumstances complainant has decided to lay the - 2 - product of the first opposite party in his house. Complainant has purchased OREVA 2 x 2 VITRIFIED CRETA 7087 PREMIUM TILES from second opposite party vide cash bill No.0003094, dated 18/09/2006. Complainant has availed the services of the best and most skilled persons for laying the tiles. Maximum care and caution was taken by these persons to lay the tiles in a perfect manner. Then the complainant noticed that almost all tiles are having bent at the edges and is of uneven surface. After noting this defect complainant contacted 2nd opposite party and informed the defect of tiles. Representatives of 2nd opposite party personally inspected the site and were convinced with respect to the manufacturing defect in the tiles. In spite of repeated assurance regarding redressing the grievance nothing is done. The bent is noted only after laying the tiles. The layed floor is uneven and the joints of the bent portion of the tile, spoil the appearance of the flooring itself. The house warming was fixed during November 2006. Due to this defect in the tiles complainant was compelled to defer the same. The portions were these tiles were laid are the drawing room and stair case portion. The defect in the tiles has adversely affected the perfection of the room and its appearance. Since these was an assurance to replace complainant waited for reply from the second respondent and company representatives for weeks together. Pasting and other works has to be done after flooring work. Since the flooring work is in dilemma such other works were also deferred. Since work was not completed issuance of completion certificate is also delayed. Hence the disbursement of last instalments is also delayed. The house was occupied 07/02/2007 i.e, 3 months after the date originally fixed. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Then the complainant send a lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 23/12/2006. Both opposite parties accepted the notice but not replied.
Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- under different heads and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. Opposite parties stated that the say of the complainant that he had constructed a residential house at Kalpathy and - 3 - while the complainant was in search of best quality vitrified tile had come across advertisement in magazine and visual media regarding the 1st opposite party's product is not correct. The allegation that the goodwill and reputation of Ajanta was another factor that influenced the customer in taking decision regarding the tiles and complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and they also assured that these tiles were free from defects and was the best available in the market and under these circumstances complainant decided to lay the product of the 1st opposite party in his house is not correct and denied by the opposite parties. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased the product of 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party. But the further allegation that the complainant had availed the service of the best and most skilled persons for laying the tiles and while laying maximum care and caution was taken by these persons to lay the tiles in a perfect manner, is not correct and opposite parties denied. The further allegation that after noticing this defect the complainant contacted 2nd opposite party and informed the defect of tiles and representatives personally inspected the site and were personally convinced with respect to the manufacturing defect in the tiles is also not correct. The allegation that the layed floor is uneven and the joint of the bent portion of the tile spoil the appearance of the flooring itself and due to the defect in tiles, the complainant was compelled to defer the house warming fixed for November 2006 is not having any reliability and basis.
The further contention that the portions where these tiles were laid are the drawing room and stair case portion and the patent defect in the tiles has adversely affected the perfection of the room and its appearance and since there was an assurance to replace the tiles complainant waited for reply from the 2nd opposite party and company representative for weeks together, is not correct and hereby denied by the opposite parties. The further contention that pasting and other works had to be done after flooring work and since the flooring work was in dilemma such other works were also delayed and the house was occupied 3 months later that the date originally fixed etc are all incorrect and denied by the opposite parties. Actually before the tiles were purchased from the 2nd opposite party, the brochure of - 4 - the product was handed over to the complainant for thorough understanding about the product. The technical parameter of the product is also brought to the notice of the complainant.
Opposite parties stated that in the complaint a vague statement is made regarding the defect and the details of the defects are not mentioned. In the said circumstances it is not possible to say whether there is any manufacturing defects in the tiles supplied. Moreover the opposite parties have not received any other complaint with regard to this particular batch of tiles. Admittedly the complainant has not lodged any compliant about the vitrified tiles purchased from the 2nd opposite party before laying them.
Further opposite parties stated that for argument sake even if it is admitted that there is any defect as alleged in the complaint it is only due to the deficiency in laying the tiles by unskilled labours and poor workmanship. For that these opposite parties are not liable. From the given description of the defects in the complaint it is clear that there is no manufacturing defect but any the same is caused due to the poor craftsmanship. Opposite parties stated that if the labourers deputed were skilled persons in the field as alleged in the complaint, they would have easily found out the defect before laying them and the complainant would be able to get them replaced also. That fact also point out to defective labour power employed. On each box containing tiles, 9 instructions are given with regard to laying. For any deviation from the instructions given and consequential defects caused the opposite parties are not liable. There is no cause of action as alleged in the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint. Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Exhibit A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibit B1 marked on the side of Opposite parties. Expert commissioner filed report and marked as Exhibit C1. The opposite parties produced the outer packet of OREVA tiles same is marked as MO1. Matter was heard. Issues to be considered are: - 5 - 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant? Issues I & II As per Exhibit A1 it is evident that complainant has purchased OREVA 2 x 2 VITRIFIEDS CRETA 7087 PREMIUM TILES from second opposite party on 18/09/2006. Complainant stated that he has availed the services of the best and most skilled persons for laying the tiles. Opposite parties stated that there is deficiency in laying tiles by unskilled labourers and poor workmanship. No contrary evidence was produced by the complainant for this aspect. The complainant has not examined labourers as a witness. Further the opposite parties stated that the complainant ought to have exercised due care and should have followed the instructions specifically stated in the outer packet of the carton before laying and affixing the tiles. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the instructions stated in the outer packet of the carton are strictly followed. According to the Commission Report marked as Exhibit C1, commissioner stated that she did not found any bent in the tile already laid. Further she stated that on careful and close look at the floor she noticed very negligible unevenness which is the result of defective workmanship. Finally the commissioner stated that she did not notice any manufacturing defect of the tiles. Complainant has not filed any objection to the commission report. No evidence produced by the complainant to show the manufacturing defect of the tiles.
In view of the above discussions, we hold the view that complainant miserably failed to prove the case. Hence the complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of June, 2010.
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
- 6 - APPENDIX Date of filing : 20/08/2007 Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Cash bill of M/s. K A V Shaik Rowther dated 18/09/2006 Rs.31.816.78
2. Ext. A2 – Copy of Counter of post office and copy of lawyer notice dated 28th December 2006 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party Nil Forums Exhibits C1 – Dated 3rd January 2009 Date of fair copy: 10/06/2010 Date of despatch: Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member | | 
