By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

This is a complaint  filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2.  Facts of the case in brief:-    The Complainant has constructed a new house at Sulthan Bathery. During the process of construction  of the house, the field representative of the Opposite Party approached the complainant and  made the Complainant believe that  the Opposite Party is the manufacturer of  quality roofing tiles using   Brasilian clay and  ensured that  the  roofing tiles will last for 50 years without  fading of colour or affecting  fungus etc.  Subsequently,  the Complainant had discussed this matter with the Opposite Party  regarding the tiles,  who also ensured  the quality of the tiles.  Based on the offers made by the Opposite Party,  the complainant had purchased  tiles costing  Rs.2,25,273/-.  The square feet rate  of the tile  was Rs.22/-. The tiles were  paved by  the Opposite Party  using their own  labourers.  But, after the completion of one year, the tiles  were faded in colours and were affected by  fungus  and became damaged and dirty.  As the quality of the tiles were inferior, there were symptoms of humidity on various  parts of the tiles. This  manufacturing defect of the tiles was intimated to the Opposite Party  on various occasions. The Opposite Party had  contacted the complainant and visited  the house of the Complainant to assess  the condition and damage  of the tiles.  On convincing the matter,  the Opposite Party  had offered the Complainant to replace the tiles  under  his own risk  and cost.  But on the contrary, he had not  acted  as per his offer. Even though the complainant had contacted  the Opposite Party many times, he had slipped out from his words  saying one or more excuses.   The tiles had  no quality as offered by the Opposite Party. Due to this,  the complainant had to face many inconvenience and losses. The act of the Opposite Party  is  unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint  with the following prayers.

1. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation  for the      

    inconvenience  and loss caused to the Complainant

2. To direct the Opposite Party  to replace the tiles fully under the risk and

     cost of the   Opposite Party  or to  refund Rs.2,25,273  being the cost of   

      the tiles.

3.  To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.44,418 being the expenses  he had

     spent  as labour charges, for paving the tiles.

4. To direct the Opposite Party to pay interest at the rate of  12% on the

    above   amounts  to the Complainant

5. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.25,000/-  as cost of this complaint.

3. Summon was served upon the  Opposite Party but  they did not appear before the Commission  and hence  they were set ex-parte. 

4. The Complainant  filed chief affidavit and  Ext A1 and C1  were marked from his side.  The  complainant was examined  as PW1  and was heard on 29.08.2024.

          5. In oral examination of the Complainant, he reiterated all his allegations included in the complaint.  Ext.A1, which is the tax invoice, reveals that  the complainant had purchased  tiles for Rs.2,25,273/- from the Opposite Party.  Ext.C1 is  the Expert Commission Report.  Considering  the facts and circumstance of this case, Ext.A1, Ext.C1 etc  Commission raised the following points  for  deciding the case on merit.

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service or  unfair trade   practice from the side of Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost...?

6. Point No.1:-  Ext. A1 reveals that the Complainant had purchased  the tiles  for use in his  newly constructed house.  The complainant also stated that the tiles were paved  using the labourers of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has also stated that he had spent Rs.44,418 being labour charges.  The expert commission report reveals that

• There were minor cracks on some tiles on the roof
• The paving of tiles on the corner portion is not proper as there are a few tiles found to be  dislodged  on the corners
• Signs of leakage were noticed  on the sunshade  near the roof of the house- one near the front portion and one on  the  eastern side of the house. 
• There were black colour  marks  on most of the tiles and  the presence of  fungus was seen on a few tiles.

          7. From the Commission Report it is evidenced that the quality of the tiles was very poor.  The Complainant states that  he had  intimated  the issue  to the Opposite Party but  he had not tried to  replace the tiles  with his own risk and costs though he had  offered to  do so.  The Opposite Party  had the  opportunity to appear before the Commission and  contest his case but  he did not do so and hence  we have no other option  than to believe the  allegations of  the Complainant.  Selling low quality  roofing tiles, charging a very huge amount  and not properly addressing  the complaints of the  buyers, as after sales service, is nothing but  deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.  Therefore,  here,  there has been  deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party  for which  they are liable to compensate  the Complainant.

          8. Point No.2:-  As  point No.1 is proved in favour of  the complainant,  the Opposite Party have the liability and responsibility  to make good  the loss  caused to the  Complainant. That is,  the Complainant is eligible to get  replacement of the tiles/refund of the cost of the tiles, compensation, expenses incurred as labour charges, interest and cost of the complaint.

          In the result,  the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party is directed

1. To replace the tiles  fully  on the risk and cost  of the Opposite Party or to  refund Rs.2,25,273/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five thousand Two hundred  and Seventy Three only) with  interest at the rate of  8% per annum  from the date of this complaint.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) towards compensation for deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice, loss and inconvenience etc.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of this complaint.

The above order shall be obeyed  by the Opposite Party  within one month from the date of this order failing which  the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  20^th  day of September  2024.

                   Date of filing:13.12.2023.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT:  Sd/-       

                                                                             MEMBER   :   Sd/- 

                                                                             MEMBER    :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           O.M. Avarachan.            Business.    

Witness for the Opposite Party:

       Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.      Tax Invoice.                           dt:15.12.2020

C1.      Commission Report.              dt:17.05.2024.     

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

      Nil.         

                                                                                                PRESIDENT: Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER    :  Sd/-                                                                                               

                                                                                                MEMBER     : Sd/-