Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/45

Smt.Anju Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hollis vitrified Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Ghai

24 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 45 dated 01.02.2023.                                                 Date of decision: 24.11.2023. 

 

Smt. Anju Singla, Prop. M/s. Singla Slimming Clinic, Satpal Mittal Road, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. 81463-00892.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Hollis Vitrified Private Limited through Managing Director Dineshbhai Hansrajbhai Rangapariya.
2. Dineshbhai Hansrajbhai Rangapariya, MD of M/s. Hollis Vitrified Private Limited
3. Dharamshi Becharbhai, Joint Managing Director M/s. Hollis Vitrified Private Limited.

All C/o. S. No.756 P1/P1/P1, Lakhadhirpar Road, Opposite Antique Granito, Tal. Morbi Ghuntu, Gujarat.

4. Bansal Sales Corporation, Madhuban Enclave, Baloke Pulli, Ladhowal Road, Haibowal Dairy Complex, Ludhiana through authorized person Pulkit Bansal.
5. Sh. Pulkit Bansal, Prop./Authorized person of Bansal Sales Corporation, Madhuban Enclave, Baloke Pulli, Ladhowal Road, Haibowal Dairy Complex, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ankur Ghai, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is Prop. of M/s. Singla Slimming Clinic, Satpal Mittal Road, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and running weight loss centre  by providing services of Weight loss, Aesthetic and other related services. Whereas OP1 is a Pvt. Ltd. Company and OP2 and Op3 are its Managing Director and Joint Managing Director respectively. OP4 and OP5 being whole sale suppliers of Ceramic Wall and Floor Tiles and Sanitary Items are agents and dealers of OP1 to OP3.

                   The complainant stated that she was looking for Vitrified tiles at her showroom to be opened at Jalandhar and she approached the OPs through OP4 and OP5 for installation of tiles/products of OP1 to OP3. As per assurance of the OPs, the complainant purchased tiled vide invoice No.703 dated 19.05.2022, invoice No.775 dated 25.05.2022 worth Rs.32,450/- and 35,550/- respectively.  The complainant spent Rs.50,000/- on installation of tiles at her showroom Trebha Wellness and Aesthetics, Ist Floor, MKC Mall, 461, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar and she put furniture and fixtures including partitions of wood and glass, reception, kitchen, three office rooms and seven patient cabin areas over 1575 sq. feet on which she spent amount in lacs. She inaugurated the said clinic in first week of June 2022. The complainant further stated that the tiles had no quality of vitrified tiles as the same was absorbing all liquid falling on it including tea, coffee, phenyl, dust and dirt with water. Even the tiles changed colour and deep patches also appeared on the same. The complainant asked the OPs to visit and solve the problem upon which OP5 visited her showroom and tendered apology for poor quality of the product. Even representative of OP1 to OP3 visited in the centre and confirmed the poor quality of the product and suggested to remove the tiles for fresh installation of tiles. According to the complainant, she has to close her centre for removal and fresh installation of tiles and for the said act, she had to suffer loss of material, earnings, loss of reputation, mental agony etc. the complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.12.2022 upon the OPs but no reply was received. Hence this complaint, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to make payment of Rs.35,550/- + Rs.32,450/- as well as Rs.50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of loss of goodwill, damages and wastage of material etc.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties despite service of notice through registered post dated 10.02.2023 and as such, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.05.2023.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record Ex. C1 is the copy of invoice No.703 of Rs.32,450/-, Ex. C2 is the copy of invoice No.775 of Rs.35,550/-, Ex. C3 to Ex. C32 are the photographs, Ex. C33 is the copy of legal notice dated 06.12.2022, Ex. C34 to Ex. C38 are the postal receipts, Ex. C39 to Ex. C43 are the copies of track consignment record, Ex. C44 is the copy of company master data of Hollis Vitrified Private Limited and closed the evidence.

                   During the proceedings of the case, the complainant filed application for permission to lead additional evidence which was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2023 subject to costs of Rs.500/-. In additional evidence, the complainant tendered documents i.e. Ex. C45 is the copy of Technical Inspection Report dated 02.09.2023, Ex. C46 is the copy of site plan of the property, Ex. C47 is the copy of presence sheet prepared by Building Expert, Ex. C48 is the copy of receipt dated 02.09.2023 of Singh Color Lab, Ex. C49 to Ex. C71 are the photographs and closed the additional evidence.                

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents annexed by the complainant.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased Vitrified tiles for the consideration of Rs.32,450/- vide receipt Ex. C1, Rs.35,550/- vide receipt Ex. C2 respectively. The disputed tiles were manufactured by OP1 to OP3 and sold by OP4 and OP5 to the complainant falsely stating the said tiles to be water and frost resistance. In the present complaint, the complainant alleged defective tiles as they absorb all liquid falling on it and even the colour and deep patches appeared visible on it. For its refurbishing, she had to close partially her centre for which she also faced embarrassment  and mental agony.  

6.                The aforesaid vitrified tiles were manufactured by OP1 to OP3 company and were supplied by OP4 and OP5, were defective with respect to quality/colour/shade variations and those tiles were having manufacturing defects which could be notified only after fixing on the floor of the complainant’s newly constructed floor. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘defect’ as enshrined in Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

Thus, the tiles (Product) which do not confirm to the compulsory standards are liable to held ‘Defective’ under the Act.

7.                Further, the complainant filed additional evidence in order to substantiate her claim by placing on record a “Technical Inspection Report” Ex. C45 about the defective nature of Vitrified tiles laid on the floor of her showroom. This Commission allowed the said report. The qualification and experice of the expert shows that he is a qualified Civil Engineer and having the competency to observe the defective nature of disputed tiles. According to his findings, the tiles found to be made of very poor quality and black marks/spots are developed in the tiles are of permanent nature. Even upper furnished surface tiles are not in equal level. In order to give better look, the report suggested he removal of wooden and glass partition walls which were fixed on the defective floor. The aforesaid defects or nature of defects by the expert report cannot be brushed aside without any valid reason.

8.                By selling the defective product to the complainant, the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ which means trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, the relevant portion of clause (i) is as under:-   

“(i) making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which –

1. falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model.”     

Moreover, the defects, if any, like discoloration or marks or spots or cracks may appear after the installation of tiles. Besides, it is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure that the tiles he sells are defect free and he cannot expect the consumer to do that kind of inspection. In Chandra Marbles Vs Ramanchandran CH (RP No 1250 of 2013), decided on June 19, 2020 in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the ultimate responsibility for defective tiles (or any other product) may fall on the manufacturer. However, as far as the consumer is concerned, the dealer who sold the tiles is liable to refund not only the cost of the tiles but also the cost of laying them. It is open to the dealer to recover the amount from the manufacturer subsequently. As such, in the given set of circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the OPs are guilty of selling defective product to the complainant as a result the complainant had to suffer. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate, if the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the total invoice value of Rs.32,450/- as well as Rs.35,550/- as per Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 respectively to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The OPs are further burdened with composite costs of Rs.25,000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the total invoice value of Rs.32,450/- as well as Rs.35,550/- as per Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 respectively to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The liability of the OPs is held joint and several. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                     President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.11.2023.

Gobind Ram.