KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 360/2006

 JUDGMENT DATED:21-02-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

M/s H & R Johnson (India) Ltd.,

West Mumbai, R/by

Its authorized signatory-                                     : APPELLANT

Manager, Ernakulam.

(By Adv.Sri.Kadakampally K Jayakumaran Nair)

          Vs.

1.      Muhammed,

Chalil House, Nellikkaparamba (P.O),

Mukkom (Via),

Kozhikkode.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

2.      Rafeek.A.K,

Proprietor, Tiles India,

Near Christian Church,

Thamarassery, Kozhikkode.

(R2 by Adv. Sri.V.Bhuvanendran Nair)

                                             JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.230/04 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.

2.      The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

3.      There was no representation for the respondent/ complainant.

4.      The case of the complainant is that he purchased 520 numbers of floor tiles from the 2^nd opposite party/dealer on 31/3/2004 and paid a sum of Rs.24,090.60.  He had purchased the best quality tiles.  After laying the substantial portion of the tiles it was found that the surface is totally uneven and the joints are seen prominent although it was represented that the tiles are joint free.  After laying it was found that the floor is in bad shape.  The tiles were laid as per the instructions in the boxes. On contacting the 1^st opposite party/manufacturer one Suresh, Company Engineer inspected the tiled area on 4/5/2004 and assured replacement of the defective tiles.  But nothing was done.  Hence the complainant seeking a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation.

5.      The opposite parties have filed separate version containing similar averments.  It is contended that the defects were on account of defective laying by unskilled labourers.  It is also alleged that the instructions printed on the boxes were not followed.  The company Engineer who inspected the floor had pointed out the above and that the grout was also not prepared properly.  There were no manufacturing defects.

6.      Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts.A1 and A2, B1 to B3 and C1. 

7.      The Forum has relied on the report of the commissioner ie Ext.C1.  The commissioner is an Assistant Engineer, National Institute of Technology, Calicut.  The Forum has noted that no steps were taken by the opposite parties to examine the commissioner to bring out the defect if any in the Commission Report.  There is no case for the appellant that no objection was filed over the commission report.  The commissioner has noted that of all the tiles laid, 90% of the same were having bends and the surface was uneven after laying although there is no colour change or breakage.  He has also noted that in the unused boxes there are 24 tiles and out of the same 22 had bend up to 1.3mm.  The loss to the complainant altogether has been estimated at about Rs.36,679/-.

8.      It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it is specifically mentioned in the leaflet and over cartons that the company would not be liable unless the defects are pointed out before laying.  It is also stressed that PW1 himself had admitted that during 3 days of laying the workers did not point out any defects to the tiles.

9.      We find that whatever be the terms printed on the cartons the opposite parties would be liable if the tiles supplied happened to be defective at the time when it was purchased.  There is no case of any substitution of the tiles.  In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for disputing the report of the commissioner.  It was not brought out that if the tiles were laid by unskilled workers there will be such an uneven surface. The commission report is specific as to the bending of the tiles.  Although the commissioner has reported the estimate of loss to the complainant as Rs.36,679/-  the Forum has only allowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and no interest or cost has been ordered. 

10.    In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  The order of the Forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.  The appellants are directed to make payment within 3 months failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 21/2/2011, the date of this order.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.