IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the   16^th  day of   March   2010

C.C.No.120/2005

Sibi Joseph (Biju)

Thadathilankal House,

Vellad Amsom, Desom,

P.O.Vayattuparamba,

Taliparamba Taluk

(Rep. by adv.Vargheese P.A.)                                Complainant

1. Manager, ABC Sales Corporation,

    P.O.Taliparamba.

2. Branch Manger,

    H/R Johnson India Ltd.,

    14/51F Bismi Tower,

    Kallayi Road, Kozhikkode 673 002.                    Opposite parties

    ( Rep. by M.K.Associates)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.64, 600/- with interest and cost to the complainant.

            The  case of the complainant is that on 17.8.04 he purchased 600 tiles Johnson Canyon Ivory Brown having size of 15 x 15 for an amount of Rs.32,100/- from opposite party No.1 which was manufactured by2nd opposite party by believing the words of opposite parties that the tiles are having good quality and having same colour. The complainant laid the tiles on the floor of his newly constructed house. But irrespective of the promise made by the opposite parties the tiles are defective having colour vary to a great degree. So the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and he visited the house and viewed the defects. But no action was taken by the 1^st opposite party and hence the complainant had issued a registered lawyer notice on 5.1.05. But instead of taking steps to cure the defects the opposite party had issued a reply stating untenable contentions. The complainant had incurred Rs.32, 100/- as price of the tiles, Rs.7500/- for sand and cement and labour charge Rs.15, 000/-and the difficulty is caused due to the deficient tiles purchased from 1st opposite party which were manufactured by2nd opposite party. So the both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant by giving the above stated amount of Rs.54, 600/- along with

 Rs.10, 000/- as compensation or mental pain and sufferings. Hence this complaint.

            Upon receiving the notice from the Forum 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed their version. The 2^nd opposite party admits that the floor tiles Canyon Brown, Ivory tiles having size 374 x 374 mm. were purchased by the complainant from 1^st opposite party which were manufacturedby2nd opposite party. But denied the allegation that the tiles are defective that colour vary to a great degree. The Johnson tiles are reputed tiles being the best available in the market and are manufactured as per ISO standards, quality  controls are taken after the tiles are fixed and the entire process of sizingcolour,  coordination, wrapping etc. are fully computerized.  Tile laying instructions are printed on each carton and having printed instructions in each box of tiles. The complainant had purchased the tiles after satisfying himself about the quality of the tiles. It was recommended that for fixing the tiles properly skilled workers can be provided and that it has to be fixed as per the specification given in the boxes. The cement and sand mortar ratio to be used in 1: 3. The best tile fixing adhesive is bal endura   and that there will be small variation in colour shades and only after checking the colour variation and shape, it should be fixed and after  tiles  are fixed opposite party has no liability. The tile fixing work was done by ordinary labourers and not by skilled workers. The representatives of 2^nd opposite party visited the house of the complainant and was found that shade variation are very minor, which is allowable as per ISO standards and the tiles are fixed without much are to the aesthetics             of the room and the thing that there is only a minute variation in colour shade which is not a manufacturing defect was informed to the complainant. But the complainant issued lawyer notice and the opposite party replied detailing the correct facts. The amount shown is extravagent and exaggerated. The contractor or supervisor who supervised the labourer in tile laying should have taken care inmatching the colour of the tiles before laying; the colour variation is inherent in every tiles. There are no manufacturing defects and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration:

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consist of the oral testimony of PW1, CW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1, A2, C1 and B 1(a)

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            Admission of opposite party along with Ext.A1 i.e. the order form dt.17.8.04 issued by  1^st opposite parity proves the case of the complainant that he had purchased JOHNSON CANYON IVORY BROWN tiles having size  15 x 15, 600 number for an amount of Rs.32,100/-. But the opposite party denied the further case of the complainant that the tiles are defective and colour varies to great degree. According to opposite party JOHNSON tiles are reputed tiles best available in the market and the tiles are became defective due to lack of skill of the workers who laid the tiles. In order to disprove this contention complainant has taken out an expert commissioner having diploma in Civil Engineering and having eleven years experience in Civil Engineering work and he had inspected the house of the complainant and filed report Ext.C1. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1. But the opposite party questioned the veracity, honesty and authenticity of the commission report. It is true that at the time of inspection the opposite parties were not present in the spot. But the opposite parties were not taken any steps to get set aside the commission report and to depute a fresh commissioner. It is true that they had made some objection. So if the opposite party has genuine case that the commissioner had filed report without making inspection, they could have very well take steps to set-aside the commission report.  More over the commissioner deposed before the Forum that “  A\-ymb hkvXp ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-¶-Xn\p ap³]mbn c­p I£n-IÄ¡pT ]cn-tim-[-\-sb-]än t\m«oÊv  sImSp-¯n-cp-¶p. F\n-¡vX¶ warrant \n¶p   2^nd OP JOHNSDON and Johnson Company BsW¶p a\-Ên-em-¡n.              post card aptJ\ c­mT FXnÀI-£n-sb- hn-h-cT And-bn-¨p. H¶mT FXnÀI-£nsb IS-bnÂsN-¶p- I-­-t¸mÄ AhÀ inspection\v ]s¦-Sp-¡p-I-bn-sÃ-¶p- F-t¶mSv ]d-ªn-cp¶p  “. More over while going through the deposition of commissioner it can be ascertained that he had inspected the site. So the contention of the opposite party that commissioner has filed report only in tune with the complainant without making inspection cannot be taken into consideration and hence we re relying upon the evidence and report by the commissioner. The commissioner reported that sk³{S lmÄ, 3 s_Uvdq-ap-IÄ, kvsäbÀtI-Ê,- emân-§v,- kn-äu«v ,sÌ-¸p-IÄ, CS-\mgn F¶n-hn-S-§-fn ]Xn-¨n-«p-ff ssSep-IÄX-½vn \nd-h-y-X-ym-k-T,- tPm-bâp-IÄ X½n  IrX-y-ambn tNcm-Xn-cp¶ Ah-Ø. ssSep-IÄ¡v hf-hp-IÄ F¶nh ImWp¶p.   So it is clear that the tiles are defective and having colour variation. The Commissioner further reported that  ssSep-IÄ X½n-ep-ff \nd-h-y-X-ym-kT aqeT ImgvN-¡mÀ¡p-­m-Ip¶ A`-TKn ssSep-I-fpsS \nÀ½m-W-¯n-ep-ff ]mI-¸ng aqe-ap-­m-bn-«p-f-f-Xm-Wv. BbXp ]Xn-¨-Xn-ep-ff  XI-cm-dp-sIm-­p-D-­m-bn-«p-f-f-XÃ.  So it is clear that the defect is due to manufacturing defect. So it is very clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence he is liable to compensate the complainant. The commissioner further reported that  ta ssSep-IÄap-gp-h-\p-T-Xo-¡T sNbvXv ]pXn-bh ]Xn-¸n-¨m am{Xta Ah-bp-sS-A-`-T-Kn-]-cn-l-cn-¡m³ km[n-¡p-I-bp-ffp   and it needs 900 sq.feet tiles and according to the commissioner for this purpose requires Rs.34, 750/- for laying the above said tiles of 900sq.feet. So the opposite parties are liable either to replace the defective tiles or to give Rs.66, 850/- along with Rs.1500/- as cost of the proceedings along with Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant and he is entitled to receive the same .Issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and  order passed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties either to replace the defective tiles or to give Rs.66, 850/- along with Rs.1500/-(Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as cost and Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                                                            Sd/-                     Sd/-                Sd/-

                                                            President          Member           Membr

Appendix

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Order form issued by OP

A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Copy of the resolution passed in the Board meetings of H& R Johnson Ltd.

B2.Carton

B3.Price list with effective fom31.12.04

Exhibits for the court

C1.Commissin report

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties

Witness examined for the court

CW1.Binu George

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur