By Smt. Bindu. R, President:

          This complaint is filed by Eljan Mathews, Age 38,  S/o. Mathews,  and  another  against M/s  Italica Tiles, NH-8-A,  Bandhu Nagar,  At Makansar, Morbi 363641, Rajkot Dt, Gujarat, India and another as Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their part.

          2. Complainants states that they have purchased  floor  tiles from 2^nd  Opposite Party manufactured  by  1^st  Opposite Party, on 25.02.2020 and  on 08.05.2020 for  their new house under construction.  Since the 1^st  Complainant was working  abroad, the  2^nd  Complainant - Wife of 1^st  Complainant was looking after the construction work.  Subsequently after laying,  it was found that four pieces of wooden finish tiles bought  from 2^nd  Opposite Party was having cracks.  When  the same was complained to 2^nd  Opposite Party, their representatives  visited the worksite and provided replacement of damaged tiles.  There after the complainants found that the floor tiles in the open terrace of the house were cracked  and  there was discolouration  for most of the  tiles within a couple of days.  The tiles which were damaged was blue shade tiles manufactured by 1^st  Opposite Party.  The said  defect was also intimated to the  2^nd  Opposite Party and thereafter telephone calls and whatsapp  conversations were made with the  representative of  2^nd  Opposite Party.  As per the advice of 2^nd  Opposite Party the Complainants communicated the  issue  with representatives of  1^st  Opposite Party and their  representative named Roopesh visited  the site on 24.06.2020 and  examined the damaged tiles.  Complainants stated that the representative confirmed that the damage caused is due to exposure to sunlight and that the tiles were not meeting the quality standards and promised a feed back from 1^st  Opposite Party within one  week from the date of site visit.  Complainants states that,  after one week,  he asked for the estimated amount including the labour charges and the list of materials  to lay down the tiles only and the same was communic ated  to 2^nd  Opposite Party via e-mail by 1^st  Complainant on 06.07.2020.  The Complainants states that they were confirmed through the telephone  call from the representative of 1^st  Opposite Party on 18.07.2020 that the company has   accepted the claim  and is ready to provide compensation which is Rs.45,850/-.  The said offer was not acceptable for the Complainants  since  the same is too low when  compared to the actual  expenses and the same was informed to  Opposite Parties and requested either to pay the amount as stated  in the estimate or to re install  the tiles at their  risk and costs.  Since the Opposite Parties were not ready for  the same the Complainant sent a notice to the Opposite Parties for which the  Opposite  Parties were not responded.   According  to the Complainants,  laying of floor tiles after removing the present tiles will cost Rs.1,52,217/-  and the Opposite Parties have failed to ensure the quality of the products and as  a result,  the flooring work of the house could not be completed in time.  According to the Complainant,  the Opposite Parties sold  products having manufacturing  defects and of no satisfactory quality to the Complainant by assuring that the same are devoid of all complaints amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their part.  Hence the present complaint is filed praying for a direction to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant Rs.1,52,217/-  with 18% interest from  25.02.2020 which is the estimated amounts required to replace the floor tiles and  for other reliefs. 

          3. Upon notice from this commission  2^nd  Opposite Party  entered in to appearance and filed their  written version and 1^st  Opposite Party was set exparte as they have not appeared after accepting the notice.

          4. Opposite Party No.2, in their version contented that the Complainant is filed on experimental basis and is not maintainable.  The purchase of tiles on 25.02.2020 and 08.05.2020 by the Complainants is admitted. According to the 2^nd  Opposite Party,  the averment that four pieces of wooden finish tiles bought from 2^nd  Opposite Party had cracked soon after laid is not known to  2^nd  Opposite Party and the same is to be proved by the Complainant.  According to 2^nd  Opposite Party,  the representative of 1^st  Opposite Party visited the house and pointed  out the defects in laying of tiles and the Complainant was convinced the reasons of damaging of the tiles is due to lack of expertise in lying  the tiles  and negligence on the part of the worker of the Complainant. The  allegation of discoloration  and cracks in the tiles laid in open terrace is also denied by 2^nd  Opposite Party,  which according to them is due to labourer’s unskilled  work.  According to 2^nd Opposite Party the workers and the contractor  are necessary parties to the complaint and hence the present complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties.   2^nd  Opposite Party contented that when the Complainant communicated the issue   to  1^st  Opposite Party, they inspected the site and found that there is no defects in the tiles.  The averment of estimate for replacement of tiles etc are not known to 2^nd  Opposite Party and they have no communication  with reference to the same from 1^st  Opposite Party.  It is contented by 2^nd  Opposite Party that the averment regarding the communication that the company has accepted the claim and are ready to provide compensation etc are not known to 2^nd  Opposite Party and the alleged  offer of Rs.45,650/-  as compensation  is denied by 2^nd  Opposite Party.  According to 2^nd Opposite Party,  the estimate offer and communication with  the 1^st  Opposite Party is not known to 2^nd  Opposite Party and according to them there is no such offer by 1^st Opposite Party and the cost of removing tiles and laying tiles given by the Chartered  Engineer is exorbitant.  According  to 2^nd  Opposite Party, they sold  out huge quantity of tiles in the same batch which is purchased by the Complainant and no complaint is reported to  Opposite Parties and hence  2^nd  Opposite Party believes that the defects occurred is only due to the  negligence of unexperienced labourers.  According to 2^nd  Opposite Party the  quality of tiles are  not analysed  by an expert and the alleged tiles are laid on out door,  in direct sun and rain.  Since the tiles are ceramic it is  not preferable for out side uses, and according to  2^nd  Opposite Party they had given clear instruction  regarding the laying of the tiles in open terrace which are not complied by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          5. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the Complainant and oral evidences of OPW1 and OPW2 from the side of the Opposite Party.  Commission report is marked as Ext.C1.

          6. Ext.A1 is a Tax invoice for Rs.1,54,760/- dated 25.02.2020.  Ext.A2 is a Tax Invoice for Rs.6,150/-.  Ext.A3 series is the photographs showing discolouration  of the tiles.  Ext.A4 is the estimate given by Mr. Dibin K Varghese for dismantling and re-laying of tiles in the residential building for Mr. Eljan Mathews.

          7. Heard  both sides and perused the records in detail.

          8. The specific case of the Complainant is that the cracks and the discolouration of the tiles which were purchased from Opposite Parties and laid on the residential building of the Complainants, forms because  of the low quality of materials  which is confirmed by the representative of 1^st  Opposite Party who visited the site on complaint of the parties.  On the other hand the case  of 1^st Opposite Party, the dealer is that it is due to the poor workmanship  and not due to the poor quality of tiles and hance prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          9. The following are the relevant points to be analysed to come into  an inference to derive into the merit of the Complaint.

1.  Whether  the Complainant had  sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?.
2. If so the quantum of compensation and other reliefs for which the Complainants are eligible to get?

10. On going through the evidences produced from the side of the Complainant,

Ext.A1 shows that the Complainant had purchased tiles from the 2^nd  Opposite Party on 25.02.2020 as per tax invoice No.8059 for Rs.1,54,760/-.  Further it is seen that on 08.05.2020 another bill is issued by Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.6,150/- which is produced as Ext.A2.  The said purchases has not been disputed by the Opposite Party.  Ext.A3 is the photographs produced by the Complainant in which it can be seen that some discolouration on some tile but the genuinety or authenticity of the photographs cannot  be  verified  by the Commission merely from the photographs produced.  Ext.A4 is the estimate for dismantling the tile work and for relaying issued by a Chartered Engineer in which it can be  seen that an amount of Rs.1,52,217/- is required for such works.

          11. On going through the deposition of OPW1 in box it can be seen that the witness deposed that “1þmw FXr-I£n Øm]-\-¯nsâ KpW-\n-e-hmcw ImWn-¡p¶ certificate Fsâ  ssIh-i-¯n-ep­v B KpW-\n-hmc ]cn-tim-[\m certificate GXv batch  s]« tile IfpsSXmsW¶v F\n¡v ]d-bm³ Ign-bn-Ô.  OPW1 further deposed that “R§-fpsS  ASp¯v h¶v  bill  ]cn-tim-[n-¨-Xn-\p-ti-j-aà 1þmw  FXr-I-£n-bpsS  {]Xn-\n[n kµÀi\w \S-¯n-b-Xv.  hoSv kµÀin¨v ]cn-tim-[n¨ hnhcw 1þmw FXr-I-£n e mail  hgn Adn-bn-¨-Xm-Wv”.   It is further deposed that “ in 10^th  paragraph of    version the Opposite Party had given clear  instructions regarding laying of tiles in open terrace which was not complied by the Complainant  F¶v  ]d-ªn-cn-¡p-¶Xv icn-b-Ô.  It is further deposed that “CXp-ambn  _Ô-s¸«v  2 e mail  ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ Ab-¨n-cp-¶p.    B e mail IÄ¡v   R§Ä  respond sNbvXn-«p-­m-bn-cp-¶p.  ]t£ [mc-W-bn F¯m³ Ign-ªn-Ã.Tile  Xd-bn Dd-¸n-bv¡p-¶ materials Dw  fade   BIp-¶Xpw  X½nepw _Ô-ap-­v.  Tile  apI-fn  ]Xn-bv¡p¶ km[-\-§sf  Tile fix  sN¿m³  D]-tbm-Kn-¡p¶  material IÄ absorb sN¿pw.   ASn-bn-ep-]-tbm-Kn-bv¡p-¶ material IÄ quality A\p-k-cn-¨n-cn-¡pw.  Ceramic tiles  Hcp Xc-am-Wp-f-f-Xv.  GVT Vitrified  F¶o Ceramic Tiles ]e  variety IÄ D­v  hnÂ]\ \S¯nb Tile IÄ full body  BtWm F¶v Ext.A1, A2  ]cn-tim-[n-¨m a\-Ên-em-hn-Ã.  AXv  fully body  Tile  BsW¶v ]d-ªm \ntj-[n-¡m³ ]äpw.  Ceramic Tile IÄ¡v Hä  coating am{Xsa D­m-Iq”.

          12. On verification of the complaint and version  by 2^nd  Opposite Party and on perusing  the documents produced by the Complainant,  as such there is no possibility for the Commission to find out the accuracy of the fact as to whether the deficiency  alleged to be claimed by the complainant has occurred either due to the negligence of the unskilled labourers or due to the inferior quality of tiles since long time has already elapsed since laying.  Hence the Commission relied  on the report of the Expert Commissioner which is marked as Ext.C1 in which it can be seen that

1.  Tiles  used is rectified ceramic tiles of sixe 600x600 mm.
2. Total area of laid tiles is 58.08 M2.
3. Out of the total area 23.47 M2 area is covered under transparent glass/polycarbonate sheet but no walls on sides except building room walls on two sides.
4. Laying  of tiles performed with spacers of approximately 4 mm  between tiles but the joints are not sealed with epoxy or any other grouts or sealants.
5. Nine numbers of tiles wears seen with cracks along with surface, area of damaged tile portion is 3.24 M2.
6. Nine damaged tiles were located staggered within the total area.
7. Out  of the nine  damage tiles 5 of them are producing hollow sound when taped with mallet.
8. The complaints  claims that the tiles fixed with a adhesive over a waterproofed roof slab with plastered cement sand bed and  waterproofing compound, it cannot be  verified at present by Direct physical examination but the claim may be admitted.
9. Skirting is laid with cement paste but seen peel off in some locations, the workmanship is seen poor in laying skirting as cement paste is not evenly applied under skirting.

Upon the said observations following inference can be arrived.

The tiles  are supposed to adhere with provisions of IS 15622 but presently the

parameters prescribed cannot be checked on the laid tiles for confirming weather in accordance with IS 15622,  the manufacturers test certificates that  are produced during  time  of inspection is claiming adequate result for required parameters but  the  batch numbers are not mentioned  on the bill and report so that the batches of material purchase and used cannot be confirmed at the moment.

Since IS15622 is allowing  3 to 6% water absorption for ceramic tiles, they may not be preferred in exposed weather condition areas where possibility of rain, alternate wetting and drying, area of thermal expansion contraction etc competent tiles undergone adequate verification process low water absorption etc may be used.

There are chance for  expansion of  entrapped air if the tiles are not laid in even bet of gum/ cement bed as it is directly exposed to sun and hence bursting of tiles/cracking may occur.  Some tiles are observed with improper filling as it sounds hollow while tapping.

Difference in coefficient of thermal expansion of different materials which are rigidly fixed may induce stresses when subjected to variation temperature which may cause failure, The tile, gum slab etc are of with various co efficient and exposure to alternate heating  and cooling there are chances for occurrences of temperature stresses result in cracking of weaker part.

As joints are not filled, water will percolate into the joints and may more water absorption, leakage other damages.

Materials used, workmanship etc cannot be verified at the moment by direct physical examination.

          13. Further it can be seen in the report that “  The total  cost of replacing  damaged tiles only will be Rs.3874/-  (Three thousand eight  hundred  and seventy four) as per DSR 2018 and cost index 36.44% excluding GST and contractor profit.  (color and pattern may not be assured when adhering to the provisions as per specification).  Cost for replacing total tile area of the area in question will be Rs.69,458/- (Sixty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight) as per  calculation”.  Since there is not complaint for  the Complainant that the tiles  paved in the total area has been damaged, the total cost stated by the Commissioner deserves no importance.  More over in the above report the Commissioner has reported that there is space between each  tiles and therefore  the removal of total tiles is not required for paving new tiles in the place of damaged tiles in this case.

          14. From all the above observation the Commission comes to the  inference that the Complainant had sustained to loss and deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Parties and hence   point No.1  is proved in favour of the Complainant.

       15. Hence the following  orders are issued.

1.  The Opposite Parties shall  pay a consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the Complainant (As per report of the Commissioner  the  total cost of replacing damaged tiles only will be Rs.3,874/- (three  thousand eight hundred  and seventy four) as per DSR 2018 and  cost index 36.44% excluding GST and contractor profit,)  since  no fixed amount has specifically been stated by the Commissioner.
2. The Opposite Parties shall pay an  amount of Rs.30,000/-  (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant.
3. The Opposite Parties are also liable  to pay Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.

Needless to say that  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable 

for the above said amounts which are to be paid within one month  from the date  of receipt of  a copy of this order.  Other wise the Complainant will be eligible for interest at the rate of 8% from the date of order till the date of realization except that is awarded as costs.

          Consumer Case  is partly allowed.

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18^th   day of April  2024.

          Date of filing:08.12.2020

                                                                             PRESIDENT    :   Sd/-

MEMBER        :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.            Eljan Mathews.               1^st  Complainant.                                                  

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.          Aneesh. M.                              Manager.

OPW2.          Rhishilal. K.V.                Assistant Engineer, PWD       

Exhibits for the Complainants:

A1.      Tax Invoice.                           dt:25.02.2020.

A2.      Tax Invoice.                           dt:08.05.2020.

A3series (2 Nos.)   Photograph.

A4.      Detailed Estimate.  

C1.      Commission Report.    

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil. 

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER    :  Sd/-