Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/332

Shree Raghunath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D M/s KajariaCeramics Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gulbir Singh

05 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  332 dated 09.08.2023.                                                       Date of decision: 05.04.2024. 

Shree Raghunath Optical, Shop No.2-A, Shree Raghunath Hospital Market, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana through its partner Sh. Raman Kumar Bansal son of Sh. Sat Parkash, resident of H. No.202-A   , Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana. Pin Code-141012.                                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, M/a. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd., J1/B1 Extension, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Opp. Bhadarpur Tharmel Power Station, Mathura Road, New Delhi, Pin 11004.
2. A-One Ashiana, 75-Avtar Nagar, Villalge Threekey, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. Email

…..Opposite parties. 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gulbir Singh Grewal, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that deals with optical trade and business and for changing the floor of his shop and requirements, visited OP2, authorized/distributor of OP1. OP1 assured for providing best quality product as OP2 has a good name and reputation in ceramic world. On the assurance of OP2, the complainant placed order of tiles 2x4k-12657 polish vide invoice No.335 dated 21.04.2023 for which OPs charged Rs.18,000/- including SGST and CGST from the complainant. After receiving the goods from the OPs, OP2 used the best available adhesive in the market i.e. J.K. Time Max White Adhesive 444 white purchased from Mansarowar Building store who was earlier an authorized stockiest of Kajaria Tiles situated at Plot No.2-3, Marble Market, Village Daad, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. The complainant stated that he hired best available technician for fixing the tiles on the floor by using said adhesive material and also by paying huge money to the OPs as well as to Mansarovar Building Store as well as the technician. But after a gap of 20 days, the colour of the tiles started fading and some black substance started coming out of the tiles and making them untidy and disgraceful. Even there were scratches on the surface of the tiles. The complainant immediately called OP2 who after inspection assured the complainant to replace the faulty tiles within 2-3 days. However, after waiting for 7-8 days he contacted OP2 who stated that they are going to change only front 2-3 tiles only. Such act of the OPs is totally uncalled for and against the ethics and principle of the business. The complainant further stated that he tried to approach the OPs many times but they failed to accede to his genuine request and refused to change any tile. The complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs to replace the tiles but no reply was given. Hence this complaint, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to replace all the tiles and affix the same with new one and also to pay compensation of rs.1,00,000./- and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, none turned up on behalf of the OPs and as such, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.10.2023.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 is the copy of his Aadhar Card, Ex. C2 is the copy of bill dated 18.04.2023 of RS.3750/-, Ex. C3 is the copy of  bill dated 21.04.2023 of Rs.18,000/-, Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.06.2023, Ex. C5 and Ex. C6 are the postal receipts, Ex. C7 to Ex. C13 are the photographs and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                 Admittedly, the complainant purchased tiles for the consideration of Rs.18,000/- vide receipt Ex. C2. The disputed tiles were manufactured by OP1 and sold by OP2 to the complainant falsely stating that the said tiles to be of best quality. In the present complaint, the complainant alleged defective tiles as their colour started fading, some black substance started coming out of the tiles and even scratches appeared on the surface of the tiles. The complainant had to purchase expensive adhesive material and to hire technician to affix the tiles.

6.                The aforesaid vitrified tiles were manufactured by OP1 company and were supplied by OP2, were defective with respect to quality/colour/shade variations and those tiles were having manufacturing defects which could be notified only after fixing on the floor of the complainant’s newly constructed floor. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘defect’ as enshrined in Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

Thus, the tiles (Product) which do not confirm to the compulsory standards are liable to held ‘Defective’ under the Act.

7.                By selling the defective product to the complainant, the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ which means trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, the relevant portion of clause (i) is as under:-   

“(i) making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which –

1. falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model.”     

Besides, it is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure that the tiles he sells are defect free and he cannot expect the consumer to do that kind of inspection. In Chandra Marbles Vs Ramanchandran CH (RP No 1250 of 2013), decided on June 19, 2020 in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the ultimate responsibility for defective tiles (or any other product) may fall on the manufacturer. However, as far as the consumer is concerned, the dealer who sold the tiles is liable to refund not only the cost of the tiles but also the cost of laying them. It is open to the dealer to recover the amount from the manufacturer subsequently. As such, in the given set of circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the OPs are guilty of selling defective product to the complainant as a result the complainant had to suffer. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate, if the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the total invoice value of Rs.18,000/- as per Ex. C2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The OPs are further burdened with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is exparte partly allowed exparte with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the total invoice value of Rs.18,000/- as per Ex. C2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. The liability of the OPs is held joint and several. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.04.2024.

Gobind Ram.