CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No.148/09 Friday, the 29th day of October, 2010 Petitioner : P.M. Sajan, Cozy Bhavan, Perumbaikadu PO, Kottayam. (Adv.Ranjit. S) Vs. Opposite party : 1) M/s.Coral Marketing, Melethil Complex, Adoor, Thatta Road, Adoor Po, Pathanamthitta. 2) Manju Marbles, Kodimatha, Kottayam. ORDER Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant purchased from the 2nd opposite party, 29 sq.meters of floor tiles manufactured by the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.9610/- on 7/1/09. The complainant purchased the tiles after seeing the sample and the particular quality and design was selected for laying. Later on opening the packets at home for laying, it was noticed that the red tiles are having a slight colour fading and white precipitate like stains on them. Immediately the matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party. Then it was told that the same will have to be polished by the persons from the company. On such polishing using some chemical, all those stains were assured to go. In furtherance of that, the tiles were laid by spending an amount of Rs.20/- per sq.feet. Thus the laying was done by the complainant by spending an amount of Rs.6240/-. After the laying the 1st opposite party had done the polishing also. But the aforementioned stains were not at all gone. The sample shown was not at all having any such stains. Thus it is clear that the tiles supplied by the 2nd opposite party is suffering from defects of fault or imperfection in the quality which is supposed to be maintained with that of the sample shown for canvassing the sale. The complainant had already contacted the opposite party several times alleging the defect and the opposite parties informed their inability to cure the defects. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of defective goods or refund of the purchase money, the laying charges Rs.6240/-, compensation Rs.10,000/- and cost. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. 1) For the manufacturing of tiles our parent company PML Industries is using BAYFERROX branded in organic pigment manufactured by Lanxess Company which is considered one of the pigments available in the world. The manufacturer is mixing the pigment with best quality of Birla White Cement manufactured by Grasim Industries for first layer of the tile. Thus the manufacturer made all their efforts to maintain the colour and quality of the tile. 2) On each packet of tile the following matter is very clearly printed. “Handle with care. In case of any manufacturing defect, those tiles should be sorted out before laying. No claim will be entertained once the tiles are laid”. Certain batches of white cement due to lime content variation very light white patches may appear on the tile, which is considered as normal. But for any customers who consider this stain as defect we replace such tiles free of cost. 3) The complainant informed the shop about the white stains after laying. Considering his complaint to redress his grievance we repolished the tiles at out cost. 4) The opposite parties never made any false representation and has not adopted any unfair trade methods to promote the sale. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of them. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists affidavits filed by both parties and Exts A1 , Ext.B1 to Ext.B2 and Commission Report Ext.C1. Point No.1 The petitioner submitted that on opening the packets for laying it was noticed that the red tiles are having slight colour fading and white precipitate like stains on them. The petitioner further submitted that the matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party and they assured that all those stains will go on polishing using some chemical. Where as 1st opposite party contented that to redress the complainant’s grievance the 1st opposite party repolished the tiles at their cost but never assured that stains will disappear. The 1st opposite party further contented that due to the lime content variation of white cement used for making the first layer of the tile, very light white patch may appear on the tile, which is considered as normal, but for customers who consider the stain as defect we replace such tiles free of cost. From the aforementioned contentions it is clear that the white percipitate like stains seen on the tiles is due to the quality variation of white cement used for the manufacturing of the tiles. The complainant filed a commission application vide IA 276/10. The said IA was allowed and advocate Deepthy Sathyan was appointed as the expert commissioner. The commissioner in her commission report stated that the red tiles laid in the car porch are having slight colour fading and most of the tiles are having white percipitate like stains on its surface. The commissioner further reported that two tiles out of the tiles displayed in the 2nd opposite party showroom were having the same appearance and colour as that of the complainant’s. The commissioner next reported that one among the said 2 tiles was in bright red colour and having no white percipitate like stains. Relying on the above mentioned report part the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant might have chosen the tiles having white percipitate stain like design. But the commissioner reported that most of the tiles laid are having white percipitate like stains. As argued by the opposite parties counsel if the tiles chosen the complainant had white percipitate like stain then definitely all the red tiles laid would have contained percipitate like design. But here the commissioner reported “almost all tiles” not “ all tiles” even though the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the white percipitate like stains are the specialty of the tiles chosen by the complainant, nothing placed on record to prove that the alleged model tiles are manufactured and sold. Further as argued by the learned counsel if the said model tiles contained such a design why the opposite party had done the repolishing to remove the white percipitate like stains on the tiles. Till the arrival of the commission report the opposite parties have no case that they are selling such model of tiles having white percipitate like stains on them and that the said model was ordered by the complainant. As the opposite parties failed to establish that the “Coral Marc 0.87 S”red model tiles contain design similar to white percipitate like stain on them. So in our view the act of opposite party in not supplying the ordered model of tiles is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point no.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 The petitioner produced the original receipt dated 7/1/09 for Rs.9610/- and it is marked as Ext.A1. As per Ext.A1 the price for black tiles is Rs.1101/- and therefore the price of red tiles is Rs.8509/- According to the commissioner the black tiles laid in between the red tiles are normal in colour and the appearance of the red tiles is odd. The petitioner claimed the laying charges sustained by the complainant amounting to Rs.6240/-, but no scrap of paper is placed on record to evidence the said expense. In view of the findings in point No.1, the complaint is allowed. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties will jointly and severally pay Rs.8509/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of October, 2010. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix Documents of the complainant 1) Ext.A1-Original bill for purchasing the tiles. Documents of opposite party 1) Ext.B1-The sample packet 2) Ext.B2-A brochure showing various designs of red tiles Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. By Order, S/4cs
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
