By Jayasree Kallat. Member:

 

            Complainant K.C. Kailasan has filed this petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant who was working as a driver in the Madras Engineering Group of the Indian Army and after completing the service returned back to his native place. He constructed a new house, for which he wished to use good quality tiles for the flooring, walls of the bath room etc.    Attracted by the wide publicity of the opposite party complainant approached the opposite party for purchasing tiles and granite for his new house. The opposite party who were dealing in tiles and granites gave the complainant their expert advice and gave the name of tiles like ‘Somany’, ‘Nitco’, ‘Savana’ and ‘Regency’. Opposite party had advised that they were the best available in the market and of superior quality and standard. Believing the opposite party complainant placed an order for 600 Sq.ft. of brown superfine Somany tiles and 270 Sq.ft. of first quality of wall tiles and floor tiles for the bathroom and kitchen. The opposite party collected a sum of Rs.30800/- on 26-3-04 and agreed to supply the first quality tiles. The opposite party failed to supply the tiles on the agreed date on 28-3-04. On 30-3-04 opposite party intimated the complainant that the flooring tile ordered by the complainant was not available and instead of the ordered tiles another shade of brown of the same quality marketed by ‘Somany’ would be supplied. When the opposite party issued bills complainant had noticed a difference in the rate shown in the quotation and actual amount collected and shown in the alleged bills. The complainant requested for proper bills. But opposite party did not issue proper bills. After laying the tiles the complainant was shocked to find that the tiles laid in the house where uneven shade and of inferior quality. Instead of first quality superfine tiles ordered by the complainant inferior 3^rd quality tiles of low finish and quality were supplied by the opposite party. Complainant informed the opposite party about the defects of the tiles. The opposite party inspected the house and seeing tiles had assured the complainant to rectify the mistake. The opposite party failed and neglected to attend the complaint of the petitioner. The complainant had preferred a Police complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police,Nadakkavu Police Station. Opposite party had offered the change of entire defective tiles within 10 days but opposite party again withdrew from the agreement and neglected the complaints of the petitioner. The complainant had undergone mental agony and financial loss on account of the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence he has filed this petition claiming compensation and refund of the amount of cost of the tiles.

 

            The opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint. Opposite party denies the fact that complainant had purchased the tiles because of the wide advertisement of the opposite party. Opposite party did not give any expert advice to the complainant to buy any particular type of tiles. Opposite party also denies the fact that variation of rate was seen in the quotation and the actual bills. Opposite party also denied the fact that as there was a shortage of quality tiles ordered by the complainant and so he was advised to buy another quality tiles. Opposite party had shown the available tiles in the shop when the complainant approached the opposite party. The complainant had taken the tiles selected by himself and opposite party has given the first quality Somany tiles to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opposite party. Opposite party has not done any unfair trade practice. Opposite party has delivered the quality tile which was selected by the complainant. Colour variation occurs in the tiles and workers have to sort the tiles before laying. Opposite party informed the complainant about this aspect, opposite party has not given any agreement to the complainant to replace the tiles. Opposite party also denies that they had represented before the Nadakkavu Police Station that they will replace the tiles. The complainant is not entitled to get the cost of the tiles as refund or any compensation from the opposite party. Complainant has filed this petition misusing the Consumer Protection Act to achieve financial gain.

 

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought in the complaint?

 

            PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side. An expert commission was appointed. The expert was examined as CW1.and commission report marked as Ext.C1.

 

            The case of the complainant is that he had purchased tiles for his newly constructed house. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.30800/- to the opposite party. Ext.A1 and A2 proves the purchase and delivery of the tiles. According to the complainant after laying the tiles he noticed that the tiles given by the opposite party were of low quality, whereas the complainant had selected superior quality tiles and paid the amount for the same. The opposite party had given low quality tiles instead of superior quality.   Complainant had informed this fact to the opposite party. As the opposite party did not attend the complaints and rectify the defects complainant had preferred a case before Sub Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu Police Station. Ext.A3 is produced by the complainant to prove this fact. The opposite party even though filed version did not adduce any evidence or mark any documents to prove their version. From the evidence of the expert, CW1 it is seen that some defects were noted in some of the tiles. The commission report states that the colour variation on some flooring tiles laid is noticed. (2) Some ceramic coating of wall tiles adopted for dadooing walls in bath rooms are damaged. The expert reports that these defects are not found in tiles of first quality. Ext.C1 and evidence of CW1 proves that the complainant was given low quality tiles which shows that the opposite party were deficient in their service and negligent in attending the complaints of the petitioner. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief. As the tiles are already laid down we conclude that the complainant is entitled to get an amount as compensation for his mental agony and financial loss.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20000/- as compensation to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.1000/- within one month of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of February 2010.

 

            Sd/- PRESIDENT                    Sd/- MEMBER                        Sd/-MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Photocopy of quotation dt. 26-3-04 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

A2. Photocopy of Delivery chellan dt. 30-3-04 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

A3. Copy of the Police complaint dt. 7-4-04 filed before S.I. of Police Nadakkavu.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

                        Nil.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. K.C. Kailasan (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

            None.

C1. Commission Report.

CW1. Linish, Manager, Marble Gallery, Calicut.

 

                                                                        Sd/- President

 

                                    // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.