By Sri.  A.S. Subhagan, Member:-

Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant  has filed the  complaint under  section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The Complainant had purchased  tiles  from  2^nd  Opposite Party and granite from  Nanchankode.  The allegation of the Complainant is that    after  paving the tiles in his bathroom and other  parts of his house under the supervision of   1^st  Opposite Party,  some of the tiles paved in the bathroom were broken due to the poor quality of the tiles in production and hence the  complainant is facing much difficulty in using the bathroom.  The tiles paved in other parts of the house are in such a condition that they may break at any time.  Due to the imperfection in paving the  granites,  certain places are seen hollow and these too may break at any time.  This has been happened  due to the poor quality in production,  use of insufficient cement,  defective designing etc.   The  colour used  for designing them is detaching from  them and it spreads over the clothes  of the guests  visiting  there.  Though the Complainant had approached 1^st  Opposite Party,  no action has been taken from  his part.  Moreover,  no remedial measures were taken by the Opposite Party No.2 too.

2.  Hence the Complainant  has filed this complaint seeking relief as to direct the Opposite Parties to pay  compensation of Rs.90,000/-  in toto.

3.  The Forum registered  a case and issued notice  to both the Opposite Parties.  On continuous  non-representation of 1^st  Opposite Party he was set exparte.  2^nd  Opposite Party entered appearance.  But as 2^nd  Opposite Party was absent at the time of evidence,  2^nd  Opposite Party was also set exparte.  Subsequently 2^nd  Opposite Party filed  IA for setting  aside  exparte order and  it was allowed.  Affidavit was filed by  complainant and examined him as PW1.

4.  The version of the  2^nd  Opposite Party  is that  2^nd Opposite Party had not sold to the Complainant any inferior or sub-standard product including  tiles.   The same brand products have been supplied to many reputed institutions but  no complaints have been reported so far.   Moreover the Complainant was received by the sales executives of  2^nd  Opposite Party and shown   him  the tiles and explained to him the price, size,  quality and method of laying the tiles as per the  instructions published by the companies.   2^nd   Opposite Party denies the allegation that the tiles supplied by him  suffered any breakage  before  or after the sale due to any deficiency of the product.  2^nd  Opposite Party submitted that  none of the tiles supplied by him  suffered any defects as alleged by the Complainant.  If at all any of the  tiles supplied by him are found to be broken when laid in the  bathroom,  the same has been caused by the failure of the Complainant to give proper care and attention to the essential pre-requisites and details of work including  wrong  method of fixation of tile  and imperfect laying.  2^nd    Opposite Party had supplied only small quantity of tiles worth Rs.9,622.73  to the Complainant.  Bulk quantities of tiles  were purchased   by the Complainant from other vendors and if there is any complaints with respect to quality and quantity of those  products are to be directed to those vendors.  The cost of products supplied by 2^nd  Opposite Party including  tax   comes   to Rs.9,622.73  but the damage asked  is Rs.90,000/-.  This  fact alone shows the profiteering courses of  the Complainant to make unlawful   gain by voluntarily causing  damage to the tiles.

5.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. 

6.  On perusal of the complaint,  documents marked and evidence the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

   1.  Whether  there has been any deficiency of service or defective  supply

         of goods on the part of the Opposite Party?

    2.   Whether the Complainant is entitled to get a consolidated 

            compensation as prayed for?

7.  Point No.1 and 2:-  For the sake of convenience and brevity both the points are  considered together.  The Complainant has produced two  documents and they were marked as  Ext.A1 and A2.   Ext.A1 is the invoice  issued by the 2^nd  Opposite party to  the Complainant for the purchase of tiles from 2^nd  Opposite Party,  amounting to Rs.9,521.72  including  taxes.    From Ext.A1  invoice it  is convinced that the tiles as per the bill  has been supplied  by  2^nd  Opposite Party to the complainant.  2^nd  Opposite Party has claimed  that the tiles supplied  to the Complainant  did not suffer any manufacturing defect,  quality or durability deficiency.  The Complainant  has purchased  tiles from other shops also.  The Complainant has not  initiated  any steps for  conducting  an  expert inspection or test  so as to prove the poor quality of the products supplied by  2^nd  Opposite Party as alleged by him.  The tiles  supplied by 2^nd  Opposite Party were paved in the bath room  and other parts  of the house of  the Complainant under the supervision of 1^st  Opposite Party.   2^nd  Opposite Party narrated that if at all any of the tiles supplied  to the Complainant are found to be broken when laid in the bath room the same has been caused by the failure of the Complainant to give proper care and attention to the essential pre-requisites and details of work including  wrong method of fixation of tile and imperfect laying.  The Complainant could not defend this  narration of the 2^nd  Opposite party at any time  of evidence.  On the other hand at the time of cross the Complainant has admitted that 2^nd  Opposite Party was not involved in the laying of tiles,  the tiles laid in other  adjacent rooms were not broken and it is not known to the Complainant that the tiles were broken because of the carelessness of the Complainant himself.  The Complainant  admitted that he is not sure that whether the complaint to the tiles have been caused due to the carelessness on the part of the worker or not and also admitted that the quality of the tiles is not known to the Complainant.  From the fact and circumstances of the Complaint  and the depositions  the Complainant is not able  to establish a case against  2^nd  Opposite Party for getting compensation as prayed for,  on account of supply of defective goods or deficiency in service.

            8.  As to  1^st  Opposite Party he was set ex-parte.  According to the Complainant the tiles were paved in the bathroom and other parts of  his house under the supervision of 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant has admitted in cross that he is not known that whether the tiles have been broken due to the carelessness of the worker or not.  The lack of quality of tiles and the expertise in paving of tiles have not been tested and established by experts or inspection.  Ext.A2 submitted by the Complainant is a handwritten voucher on white paper signed by 1^st   opposite Party for proving the labour charges  paid by the Complainant to  1^st  Opposite Party.  As no amount is seen recorded on Ext.A2  and as 1^st  Opposite Party was not examined  in evidence for ensuring its genuiness the  Forum could not come to a conclusion  as to the veracity of the voucher produced as Ext.A2 by the Complainant.  Hence 1^st  Opposite Party also shall not be found   guilty  and  as such the Complainant is not entitled to get compensation from 1^st  Opposite party also as claimed for, on account of deficiency in service

      In the result,  the Forum passing the order as follows:-   The complaint is dismissed.   No cost to either parties.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  13^th  day of February 2020.

Date of filing : 27.06.2018

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER:      Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER :     Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant.:-

PW1.              Rahul. M                               Complainant                                   

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Abdul Salam.                       Business.                 

Exhibits for the Complainant:    

A1.      Invoice.                                             dt:27.02.2018.

A2.      Receipt.                                             dt:05.04.2018.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.