By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to refund the value of tiles and cost and compensation due to the supply of non standard quality tiles.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had purchased house construction items to his newly constructing house from the opposite party No.1 on 20.10.2012. In the very same purchase, the complainant had purchased the floor tiles of 24X24, manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.30,832/-. At the time of purchase the opposite party No.1 told that the said tile is a high quality 1^st Grade floor tile. Believing that this complainant purchased the same. On 24.10.2012 this complainant had layed the said floor tiles on the floor of the central hall of the newly constructing house of the complainant. The tiles were layed in an evening time by the workers. But on the next clay after the fixing of the tiles, it was Found that the color of the tiles are slightly different from one to another and there was no matching of the tiles. From the very look it seems to be awkward. Since flaying was done in an evening the day light was dim and the color changing was not noticed by the workers. Normally the colors and pattern of the floor tiles of one batch will be uniform in nature and not practicable to peruse the matching of tiles at the time of its laying. Hence the workers never think that there is different colors in a one set of tiles and as usual they layed the tiles. But on 25.10.2012 in the day light it was found out the problem by the complainant. Moreover, it was also found that the edges of the many tiles are broken slightly and color coating also slightly peeled out and its color also faded, all those defects are purely manufacturing defects. Knowing fully that the said tiles are substandard and defective the opposite party No. I falsely informed that the said tiles are high quality. Hence the act of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice. Immediately noticed the defects this complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and informed all these facts to him. Then the opposite party No.1 personally went to the site and convinced that the tiles are defective and not at all useful to lay in a good house. Hence the opposite party No. I returned 24 boxes and two pieces which are the remaining and replaced with the tiles of Vita. He also assured that he will make arrangements along with the opposite party No.2 to refit with good quality tiles on their expenses. On the next day opposite party No.1 informed that the technician of opposite party No.2 will inspect the site and there after they will replace the tiles. Believing that this complainant had waited the technician on all the days with the workers who had fixed the tiles. But the technician of the opposite party No.2 had never come. Now it is highly necessary to refit the tiles in the central hall by taking 15 boxes and 2 pieces. To refit the tiles this complainant has to spend money about Rs.21,867/-. Due to the above said act of the opposite parties this complainant has suffered a great mental agonies, financial loss and hardships. Even though the above stated mental agony and hardships cannot be compensated in terms of money, this complainant restricts the claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

3. Hence prayed before the Forum for an order directing the opposite party No.1 and 2 to give Rs.30,000/- towards refitting of the tiles and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

3. Notices were served to opposite parties on 16.11.2012 and 21.11.2012 respectively. Opposite party No.1 filed version and opposite party No.2 not appeared before the Forum, hence opposite party No.2 is set ex-parte.

4. In the version, opposite party No.1 stated that, when the complainant reported the defects to opposite party No.1 after confirmation of the colour change, all the tiles were replaced by the opposite party No.1 except those already laid and further stated that if any colour change or any damage is noted, it should be checked thoroughly before laying the tile and if it is so, reporting before laying the tile is the bounden duty of the complainant and without obeying this conditions, whatever the consequences occured after laying, the opposite party No.1 is not liable and the complainant is only liable for the damages if any caused and further stated that the noted damages is only due to the manufacturing defect and for that the manufacturer is only liable and further submitted that due to these above said reasons the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to this opposite party No.1.

5. The complainant is examined as PW1 and he stated as stated in the complaint and Ext.A1, A2 and Ext.C1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the Estimate which shows the return of goods to the opposite party. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner Report, Commissioner stated that the laid tile is of low quality tiles and complaints of colour fading, bend and damage in the border is noticed. Commissioner further reported that about Rs.30,000/- may come as expenses to cure the defects. Opposite party No.1 also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.B1 is the packet of tile, wherein it is noted that before laying the tile the party should check whether any complaint is there or not.

6. On analysing the complaint, version and other evidences the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

7. Point No.1:- It is admitted by the opposite party in his version and affidavit and deposition that the alleged complaint is found in the material but argued that it should be noted before laying and should be intimated to opposite party at once but the Forum after analyzing all the evidences found that only after laying the tiles some defects may show the difference of colour and bend and defects. So an ordinary technician may not be able to findout the quality, colour and bend. Hence this Forum found that it is the manufacturing defects. Hence the supply of low standard material and damaged material by the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount, cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only towards material cost and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as cost and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum for whole amount thereafter.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of January 2015.

Date of Filing:06.11.2012.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Vinayaraj. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Aby. Manager, Chingly Ceramics.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Estimate. dt:20.10.2012.

A2. Estimate. dt:25.10.2012.

C1. Commissioner Report. dt:02.01.2014.

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

B1. Box containing Laying Instructions.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-