DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  22^nd day of  August,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of Filing: 27/03/2017    

     CC/56/2017

P.Haridas,

S/o.P.Kumaran,

Padinchakara House,

P.O.Mannampatta,

Sreekrishnapuram,

Palakkad- 678 633

(By Adv.M.Ranjith)                                                                -           Complainant

                                                                                                  Vs

1.Biju C.B.,

   Regional Manager,

   Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.,

   Door No.48/557, A,B,C&D

   Near Gold Souke Grande,

   Vyttila, Cochin – 682 019

2.Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.,

    VI/B1 (Extn),

    Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

    (Opp. Badarpur  Thermal Power Station),

    Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044

3.K.P.M. Sanitation,

    KPM Junction, PO Karalmanna,

    Cherpulassery – 679 506                                        -           Opposite parties

   (Ops 1 & 2 by  Adv.T.R.Anil Venugopal

    OP3 by Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Complainant alleges that he purchased 67 boxes of Kajaria tiles from the additional 3^rd opposite party. While using it, the complainant found that the tiles were having bent on sides and bulging in the centre. So the complainant had used 11 boxes of tiles to complete one room and returned 56 boxes. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties had failed to respond properly to his communications intimating the OPs that he was not satisfied with the tiles put to use. Hence, he claimed cost of tiles, labour charges, transportation charges, cement and materials charges, court expenses and compensation (totaling Rs.50,000/-).
2. The first opposite party filed version stating that they had agreed to take back 56 out the 67 boxes of tiles purchased by the complainant.  They had also not sought for the price of 11 boxes used by the complainant. The workers of the complainant would not have resorted to laying of tiles if they were defective. Further a defect in a tile can be found by observing them and there need not be any technical expertise.
3. OP3 filed version contending that the petitioner had ample opportunities to return the boxes if he had found bent and bulging as stated in the complaint. As to why the complainant opened 11 boxes of tiles to complete the work of one room is not known to the opposite party. They also sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.         The following issues are framed for  consideration

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving that the tiles are defective in nature ? 
2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
4. Reliefs,  if any ?

5.         Evidence on the part of complainant comprised of Exts.A1 to A3. A3 is a series of communication between the complainant and opposite parties and the same is objected to by counsel for the opposite parties.   The complainant was examined as  PW1. Witness for opposite parties were examined as DW1 & 2. Report of the expert appointed by this Commission was marked as Ext.C1.  

Issue No. 1

6.         It is the case of the complainant that even though he had purchased 67 boxes of tiles he could put only 11 of them to use. Even the said 11 boxes were full of defective tiles. The said allegation was stoutly denied by the opposite parties.

7.         In order to substantiate his allegations, the complainant took out an Expert Commissioner. Site inspection report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. The relevant

            portions of the expert’s report is reproduced as herein below:

            “2. I saw tiles having measurement of 60 x 60 cm are laid in the room shown to me  by the complainant. The said room is having a carpet area of 13.20 m² (142 square feet). In the said room some tiles with bents are seen used to lay the flooring.

            3. On my inspection the labourer had used 7 to 10 tiles with bulging upto 1 to 2 mm at the centre compared to the edges of the tiles in the said room.  The damaged area will be 6.51m²  (70 sft). Except such 7 to 10 tiles with defect I could not find any defect in the other tiles laid in the said room. These defective tiles can be discarded by the skilled labours while laying. These defects are happened during manufacturing process of the tile. “

            Even though the complainant had filed objection to Ext.C1, the said objections does not materially attack the Ext.C1 report. The only objections  are that the statement that skilled labours could have discarded defective tiles is not correct,  that since it was stated in the bills itself that loose tiles will not be taken back the complainant had to use the tile once box was open and that except for the room shown every other room was laid with different tiles. The complainant had not cared to cross examine the expert on the factors to which the complainant is having objection.

8.         Ext.C1 does not portray a grievous picture as alleged by the complainant. In the room wherein the tiles purchased by the complainant is laid, only 7 to 10 tiles suffers from negligible manufacturing defect. It is also not clear why the tiles were laid by the skilled labourers engaged by the complainant.

9.         Hence the complainant has failed to prove defects in the tiles as alleged by him.

            Issue No.2

10.       Ext.A2 is a communication issued by the 3^rd opposite party to 2^nd opposite party wherein they had stated that they had taken return of 56 boxes of tiles.  But 11 boxes were already used.  This is in congruence with the case of the complainant.

11.       In so far as this case is concerned, the statement made by the Commissioner that the bends and bulges were apparent and a skilled labourer could have discarded the said tiles is very vital.  The question that remain unanswered is as to why the complainant resorted to using 11 boxes of tiles, had  he found that the tiles were defective and were suffering from manufacturing defect.

12.       Opposite parties have taken return of the tiles as soon as the complainant had brought the tiles to them.  The opposite parties had done everything in their capacity to redress the grievance of the complainant. Herein, we can find from the pleadings of the complainant as well as Ext.A2 that the opposite party had willfully taken back the tiles. The only tiles that could not be returned where the ones laid by the complainant’s skilled labourers, who, for reasons best known to them, had chosen to ignore the bend and bulge and laid the tiles. For the conduct of the labourers engaged by the complainant, we cannot hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

13.       In his testimony, the complainant has stated that the he had engaged an expert for laying tiles. Further he resorted to laying even after finding that the tiles were defective.

            Page 2, lines 12-14. “ Tiles CSm³ G¸n¨Xp Hcp tem¡Â   workers\bmWv. AbmÄ  expert BWv”

            In page 3, lines 14-16 and page 4 lines 1&2, he deposes as follows: “Tiles bmsXmcp   defect Dw CÃm¯Xp sIm­mWv Hcp apdn apgph³ C«sX¶p ]dªm icnbÃ.  Defect IÄ D­v. Ignbp¶Xpw  minimize sNbvXn«p B  room complete sN¿m³ th­n sNbvXXmWv.”

14.       Hence, we have no option but to hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties.

            Issues 3 & 4

15.       In view of the finding in issue No.2, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 22^nd  day of August,  2022.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                              Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member  

                              Sd/- 

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Original invoice bearing No.2115 dated 15/2/2017

Ext.A2  - Original of communication dated 25/2/2017    

Ext.A3 series– e mail communications between complainant and opposite parties     

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

 Nil

 Court Exhibit

 C1 – Site inspection report dated 17/6/2019 filed by Jithesh K., Enigneer

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 –   Haridas P, Complainant

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – James Joseph, Area Sales Manager, Kajaria Ceramics

DW2 – Shajahan, Proprietor, KPM Sanitation.

Court Witness

Nil

Cost :  No cost allowed.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.