By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties to get compensation for the defective tile purchased from opposite parties.

2. Complainant in C.C. No.217/2013 filed an I.A 44/2014 for joint trial of this complaint with C. C. No.216/2013. Heard both parties, since the opposite parties in both the complaints are one and the same the petition allowed and proceeded with the matter.

3. Brief of the complaint in C.C. No.217/2013:- The complainant purchased vitrified tiles from the 1^st opposite party showroom at Calicut vide model no. WHIGYIPOL NP 59.8 x 59.8 4 A tile i.e. 2 feet x 2 feet size 130 boxes each box containing 4 tiles a total No. of 520 tiles. At the time of purchase representatives of 1^st opposite party and show room sale officers/Sale Manager explained and made the complainant believe that the tiles that the complainant had selected are of latest pattern, Superior and are of export quality and the product is guaranteed and further assured to complainant that the product the complainant had chosen are free from all technical defaults/failures Manufacturing defects etc. The complainant believed the 1st opposite party and purchased 520 tiles and its allied product for a sum of Rs. 1,76,962 (Rupees One lakh Seventy six thousand nine hundred and sixty two only) the opposite party under took and delivered the tiles at complaints residence at kalpetta at the cost of opposite parties since they assured they have sales and service at Kalpetta and the tiles were paved in complainants house at a cost of Rs. 22/- per square feet as labour charge. While so after lying the vitrified tiles started developing black dots on its fair white surface and the whole tiled area started looking dirty and shabby. The complainant immediately informed the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party replied that they would send a technical support person to complainant's house to see the material and note down the defects caused. The assurance of the 1^st opposite party remained unperformed and no technical person showed at complainant's residence to not down the defects. Complainant made complaints over phone on several occasions but complainants' grievance remained un-redressed. Finally on 10.06.2013 complainant made a written complaint to the 1st opposite party mentioning the defects along with the copies of the purchase invoices. On 19.06.2013 the 1^st opposite party send an acknowledgment letter for complainant's complaint letter stating that they would send Mr. Deepak an authorized person of R A K Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., for resolving the issue of quality complaint. The authorized person visited the complainant's residence for personal inspection and took photographs and noted down the defects and left complainant's residence assuring that the defects are of manufacturing and relief would be sought out within next fifteen days. The complainant on the last week again communicated to the 1^st opposite party to check with the complaint's redressal but the 1^st opposite party negligently evaded from their responsibility blaming that 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are solely responsible for the product quality and only company can make a decision regarding honoring the guarantee and redressing the complainant's grievance. Hence filed this complaint to reimburse the bill amount with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

4. Brief of the complaint in C.C. No.216/2013:- The complainant purchased vitrified tiles from the 1^st opposite party showroom at Calicut vide model no. WHIGY/POL NP 59.8 x 59.8 4 A tile i.e. 2 feet x 2 feet size 65 boxes each box containing 4 tiles a total No. of 260 tiles. At the time of purchase representatives of 1^st opposite party and show room sale officers/Sale Manager explained and made the complainant believe that the tiles that the complainant had selected are of latest pattern, Superior and are of export quality and the product is guaranteed and further assured to complainant that the product the complainant had chosen are free from all technical defaults/failures Manufacturing defects etc. The complainant believed the 1^st opposite party and purchased 260 tiles and its allied product for a sum of Rs.1,00,675/- the opposite party under took and delivered the tiles at complaints residents at kalpetta at the cost of opposite parties since they assured they have sales and service at Kalpetta and the tiles were paved in complaint's house at a cost of Rs.22/- per square feet. While so on in the month of December 2012 the vitrified tiles started developing black dots on its fair white surface and the whole titled area started looking dirty and shabby. The complainant immediately informed the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party replied that they would send a technical support person to complainant's house to see the material and not down the defects caused. The assurance of the opposite party remained unperformed and no technical person showed at complainant's residence to note down the defects. Complainant made complaints over phone on several occasions but complainant's grievance remained unredressed. Finally on 7^th June 2013 complainant made a written complaint to the opposite party mentioning the defects along with the copies of the purchase invoices. On 19^th June 2013 1^st opposite party send an acknowledgment letter for complainant's complaint letter stating that they would send

Mr. Deepak an authorized person of R A K Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., for resolving the issue of quality complaint. The authorized person visited the complainant's residence for personal inspection and took photographs and noted down the defects and left complainant's residence assuring that the defects are of manufacturing and relief would be sought out within next fifteen days. The complainant on the last week again communicated to the 1^st opposite party to verify regarding the complaint but the 1^st opposite party negligently evaded from their responsibility blaming that 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are solely responsible for the product quality and only company can make a decision regarding honoring the guarantee and redressing the complainant's grievance. Hence filed this complaint to reimburse the bill amount with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

5. Notice served to opposite parties, they appeared and filed version in C.C.217/2013 and in C.C.216/2013 stating that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because complainant had purchased the tiles from the opposite party's showroom at Calicut. On receipt of the said complaint the 2^nd opposite party sent its representative to the premises for inspection. After verification the said representative, Mr. Deepak understood that there was no such colour variations or black dots on the surface of the tiles. The complainant had not made repeated complaint as narrated in the complaint. So also the above said representatives had not noted down any manufacturing defects. If at all there was any colour variation or black dots on the surface of the tiles it could have been brought to the notice of the any of the opposite parties. But complainant has not done the same. And moreover complainant had not engaged the laying work with skilled masons and workers. So also complainant had to use superior quality of row materials in order to lay the tiles. The intention of the complainant herein is to grab some money from these opposite parties some how. The allegation regarding the expense for rectification shown in the complaint is baseless and they were not liable to pay any amount and these opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation or any amount to the complainant as demanded in the complaint. The 3^rd opposite party herein has been manufacturing superior quality tiles with amazing technology with utmost care and caution. The cause of action shown in the complaints are is not true and this Honorable Forum doesn't have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. On considering the complaints, versions and documents 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:- The complainant in C.C.217/2013 filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1, Ext.A1(1), A1(2), A2(1) and A2(2) documents were also marked. Complainant in C.C.216/2013 also examined as PW2 and Ext.A3(1), A3(2), A4(1) and A4(2) were marked. On a petition by the complainant an Expert commissioner inspected the disputed tiles paved area of both houses and filed report, ie marked as Ext.C1 and C2. Opposite parties not adduced oral evidence. From the evidences and documents the Forum found that the complainants purchased the disputed tiles on 24.09.2012. This complaints is filed on 03.10.2013 ie immediately after one year of purchase of tiles. According to the complainants some black dots are developed on its fair white surface and the whole titled area started looking dirty and shabby and complainant reported this to opposite party. Thereafter an authorized person from the opposite party visited complainant's residence and took photographs and noted down the defects and assured that the defects that are manufacturing and relief would be sought out within next 15 days. Thereafter opposite parties not responded to this matter. But opposite parties strongly opposed this. On receipt of the complaint regarding the colour variation 3rd opposite party's representative had visited the premises and understood that there is no such colour variation. If there was any colour variation or black dots on the surface of the tiles it could have been brought to the notice of any of the opposite parties but complainant has not done the same. But in Ext.A2(1), A2(2) and A4(1) and A4(2) clearly shows that complainants have communicated about the complaint to opposite parties. Opposite parties further stated that if anything there in the titled area due to inferior quality of the raw materials used in support of paving the tiles and lack of skilled labours to lay the tiles. An Expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum, he had inspected and report filed. Opposite parties strongly objected the commissioner's reports stating that, his reports cannot be reckoned he is only a mere Civil Engineer working very near to the complainant. He had no adequate knowledge in ceramic products and the report is baseless. Again opposite party raised contentions that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. That the tiles were purchased from the 1^st opposite party's showroom at Calicut. In the complaints, complainants stated that 1^st opposite party delivered the tiles to complainant's house at Wayanad. But opposite parties challenged this, that there is no documents to show that goods were delivered at complainant's house by the 1^st opposite party. On going through these evidences the Forum of the view that, disputed tiles were paved in both the complainant's houses, Thereafter the defects were shown in the paved tiles, herein at complainant's house that means the cause of action arouse within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

8. Produced documents Ext.A1(1), A1(2) and A3(1), A3(2) shows that complainants were purchased tiles from 1^st opposite party's shop at Calicut. In Ext.A2(1), A2(2), A4(1) and A4(2) it is clearly understood that the complainants communicated about the defects of the tiles to opposite parties. According to complainants immediately after the paving of tiles, the paved tiles seemed to be damaged by developing black dots on its fair white surface and it looks like 10 years old. An authorized person checked the tiles and explained the complainants that it was due to manufacturing defects. Then representative from opposite parties took sample for inspecting the tile, thereafter there is no reply from the part of opposite parties. On perusal of the records and the submissions this Forum of the view that opposite parties being a reputed company it is necessary to take immediate action against customer complaints. But in this case opposite parties are failed to provide proper concern to the complaint of this customers. Expert commissioner's report Ext.C1 and C2 clearly reveals that there developed black dots on the white surface and also it was noticed that such black dots and change in the shade spreading to more and more area. Floor areas which were not subjected to wear and tear (below furniture) was also inspected by the commissioner and found that the tiles in such area were also having these black spots and change in colours. A piece of the tile also produced by the commissioner before the Forum, we thoroughly checked the tiles that the Commissioner produced before the Forum. We also noted black dots on the surface of the unpaved tiles. In Ext.C1 and C2 commission reports, Commissioner stated that “colour variations on the tiles is not due to the lack of maintenance, labour defects etc..but due to manufacturing defects”, he stated the remedy for rectifying the defect of the tile is to remove the damaged tiles from the whole layed area and replace with new good quality tiles. Commissioner assessed an amount of Rs.2,80,030/- to rectify the above defects in C.C.217/2013 and an amount of Rs.1,84,834/- to rectify the defects in C.C.216/2013. Hence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and the complainants are entitled to get compensation from opposite parties.

9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainants in both the cases, the complainants are entitled to get cost and compensation. The Points No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighty Thousand) only with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as compensation and cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only to the complainant in C.C.217/2013 and Rs.1,84,800/- (Rupees One Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand and Eight Hundred) only with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as compensation and cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only to the complainant in C.C.216/2013. This order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the whole amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17^th day of April 2015.

Date of Filing: 03.10.2013. PRESIDENT :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Saheed. Complainant in C.C.217/2013.

PW2. Sunil Kumar. Complainant in C.C.216/2013.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1(1). Retail Invoice. Dt:05.10.2012.

A1(2). Retail Invoice. Dt:24.09.2012.

A2(1). Complaint Letter.

A2(2). Reply letter.

A3(1). Retail Invoice. Dt:24.09.2012.

A3(2). Retail Invoice. Dt:05.09.2012.

A4. Complaint Letter.

A4(1),(2). Reply letter.

C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:14.05.2014.

C2. Commissioner Report. Dt:14.05.2014.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-