BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 2nd day of June 2017
Filed on : 23-09-2014
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.711/2014
Between
Jisha John, : Complainant
D/o. John, Puthatte, (By Adv. Anjana P., “Srivathsa”,
Perinthalmanna, 61/335, Judges Avenue,
Malappuram. . Kaloor, Kochi-17)
Vs
1. M/s. Fashion Marbles and : Opposite parties
Granites (P) Ltd., S.A. Road, (1st & 2nd (By Adv. Aneesh K.M.,
Vyttila, Ernakulam M/s. MPR. Nair & Devan
rep. by its Managing Director. Ramachandran, Chittoor road,
Cochin-35)
2. M/s. Shubh Tiles,31/321,
BSA Road, Vyttila,
Cochin-682 019.
3. M/s. Comet Granites (P) Ltd., (3rd O.P. By Adv. Surya J,
Rajcot, Gujarat having its Kumaran Arcade, 1st floor, Power
Marketing Office at 207 A, House road, Kochi-18)
Devaraca CHS Ltd., Plot No. 83,
Sector17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400 315.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant belonging to Malappuram, came to the opposite party at Ernakulam to purchase vitrified tiles and purchased the same at the rate of 1,357/- per unit for a total amount of Rs.85,000/- and it was supplied to the complainant as per invoice No. GOW 2859 dated 04-11-2013. The complainant through her workers laid the said tiles to the floor and also to the side of walls adjoining the staircase. The tiles were laid during the 2nd week of December 2013 and the house warming was done on 26-12-2013. Immediately, thereafter the colour of the tiles started fading giving an ugly appearance . Therefore the complainant made complaint to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The representatives of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant and told the complainant that there was manufacturing defects and that the tiles would be replaced. The complainant demanded the costs of the replacement of the tiles, which was estimated at Rs. 5,00,000/-. In spite of repeated requests and demands the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to carry out their promise of replacing the defective tiles. The 3rd opposite party, as per letter dated 04-05-2014 undertook to replace of the tiles with fresh ones, admitting and acknowledging that there was manufacturing defects. The complainant therefore issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties which was deliberately avoided by them. The complainant has suffered considerable mental agony on account of the defective flooring tiles supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant therefore seeks refund of the costs of the tiles at Rs. 85,000/- and costs for the removal of the tiles estimated at Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, through this complaint.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3.
Version of opposite parties 1 and 2
5. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are only distributors of tiles manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant met the 1st opposite party in this regard only after a considerable period of time after laying the tiles. The invoice issued by the opposite parties had specifically made clear that the buyer should verify the material before purchasing. The complainant purchased the tiles attar thorough inspection of the tiles and on being satisfied about the quality. The discoluration of the tiles were not due to the manufacturing defect but was due to the improper laying and the inappropriate usage of chemicals. The manufacturer of the tiles, the 3rd opposite party as a good gesture agreeing to replace the tiles even though they are not legally liable for the same. The opposite parties are not liable to meet the claim of the complainant that Rs. 5,85,000/- would be required for relaying the tiles. The attempt of the complainant was to extract money from the opposite parties. The demand of the complainant was usurious and unconscionable. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties never made any promise to the complainant that they would replace the defective tiles. If the tiles had manufacturing defects that should have been taken care of by the manufacture and not by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
The 3rd opposite party did not appear to contest the matter.
7. The complaint was filed on 23-09-2014. On 09-06-2014 the complainant filed I.A. 351/2016 to appoint an expert commissioner and that was allowed. The commissioner visited the property on 12-10-2016 and filed Exbt. C1 report. The complainant got examined as PW1 and Exbt. A1 to A5 were marked. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. Heard both sides.
8. On the above pleadings the following issues arise for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
Issue No. i. The complainant was examined as PW1. She gave evidence that she purchased the tiles on 04-11-2013 and it was laid during December 2nd week. During the cross-examination she agreed that before purchasing the tiles she had seen the tiles and was satisfied about the quality of the tiles. The tiles were not paved by the agents or workers of the opposite parties. The complainant did not produce any documents to show that the tiles were defective. There was not even a photograph of the allegedly defective tiles. Exbt. A1 to A5 documents are only the purchase bills and the reply issued by the 3rd opposite party. It is seen made clear in Exbt. A5 reply that in ceramic field shade and colour variation is an inherent property of ceramic tiles as it was made of natural clays. If there happened to some variation in colour they were willing to solve the problem. However, no steps is seen taken by the parties concerned thereafter. Exbt. C1 is the commission report prepared by Mr. Akhil S. Kottaram, a Civil Engineer from Palghat. He opined that the demolishing cost of the tiles and relaying of the tiles would caused the complainant Rs. 1,19,154/- including the cost of the tiles valued at Rs. 75,660/-. The expert did not make any comment in his report in connection with the alleged deterioration of the quality of the tiles and its alleged discolouration. We therefore find that the complainant has failed to establish her case of deficiency in service as against the opposite parties. The issue is found against the complainant.
10. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No.(i) against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of June 2017.
Sd/- Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 04-11-2016
A2 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 04-11-2013
A3 : Copy of tax invoice dt 04-11-2013
A4 : Copy of Form 8 B Credit
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 04-05-2014
C1 : Copy of commission report
Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :`
By Post: By Hand:
