CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.691/09
Shri Ashutosh Kumar Agarwal
S/o late Shri R.N. Agarwal
Having Office At 202, Second Floor
A-2, Acharya Niketan
Mayur Vihar Phase-1
Vs.
M/s Anant Raj Industries Ltd.
Regd. Office 85.2 K.M. Stone
Delhi Jaipur Highway
Village Bhudia, P.O. Salgwari
Distt. Rewari, Haryana
AND HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
M/s Anant Raj Group
ARA Centre
E-2, Jhandewalan Extension
New Delhi-110 055.
M/s Roop Chand & Sons Pvt. Ltd.
M-23 M- Block Market
Greater Kailash II
New Delhi-110 048. …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-07.09.2009
Date of Order-22.12.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to sale of defective product by OP
- Facts outlined in the complaint are that the complainant was renovating his office in the year 2008. The complainant believed the representation on the website of OP-1 leading him to believe that OP-1 was the importer of superior quality goods.
- The complainant visited the shop cum showroom of OP-2 for purchase of tiles for his office. OP-2 persuaded the complainant to purchase the tile imported by OP-1. The complainant purchased a total of 31.25 boxes (29 boxes + 9 tiles) of 600 mm X 600 mm tiles from vide bill No.002490 dated 27.02.2008 and Bill No.002492 dated 03.03.2008 from OP-2. The tiles were sold @Rs.80/- sq.ft. The complainant alleges that tiles manufactured in India are usually available in the range of Rs.35.4 per sq.ft.
- Upon receiving the tile delivery, the complainant found a significant number of tiles to be either cracked or with chipped corners. Allegedly, Mr. Jha from the OP-2 office acknowledged that the damage might have occurred due to mishandling during transportation. He extended an offer to replace the damaged tiles.
- The complainant waited for six weeks. As the renovation was already underway and there was no response from OP, the complainant continued with the process of renovation.
- Upon the installation of the tiles, numerous additional defects became apparent. The complainant lodged a complaint with OP-2, and the sales representative of OP-2 examined the issue. It is claimed that the sales representative acknowledged the defects, including warping of many tiles by approximately 10 mm. This warping reportedly led to the presence of voids beneath the tiles during installation, resulting in the development of cracks and uneven laying.
- The complainant thereafter requested M/s Swati Structure Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Consulting Engineers to inspect the installed tiles in the office of the complainant.
- Top of Form
- The complainant submits that the tiles sold by OP are of inferior quality, suffering from many defects. The complainant prays for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- or replacement of entire tiles with allied expenses.
- OP-1 in its written statement submits that there is no direct transaction between OP-1 and the complainant. OP-1 further assert that OP-2 is not even authorized dealer of OP-2. OP-1 submits that no service has ever been availed by the complainant nor he is a customer of OP-1.
- It is submitted that OP-1 is merely an agency importing tiles and cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defects. It is further submitted that the complainant has installed the tiles with full knowledge of the defects, thereby waiving his right to raise any objection.
- OP-1 imputes that the bill dated 27.2.2008, and 03.3.2008 are fake and forged. It is apparent from his bills that only one sale has been made in three days which is not possible in a place like Greater Kailash Area.
- Notice was issued to OP-2. None appeared for OP-2 despite notice. OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.02.2012.
- The complainant submitted evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents as under:
- The copies of bills dated 27.2.2008 and 3.3.2008 are exhibited as Exhibit CW 1/1 and CW 1/2.
- The copy of e-mail dated 7.3.2008 is exhibited as Exhibit CW 1/3.
- The copy of notice of demand is exhibited as Exhibit CW 1/4.
- The copies of registry of receipts are exhibited as Exhibit CW 1/5.
- OP-1 submitted evidence by way of affidavit as under:
- The copy of the broacher/catalogues are marked as Exhibit-RW-1.
- The Commission has considered the pleadings and material on record. The bill dated 27.2.2008 bearing invoice No.002490 shows that floor tiles (inclusive of cartage) have been purchased from OP-2 for Rs.42,445/-. The bill dated 03.03.2008 bearing invoice No.002492 shows that floor tiles (inclusive of cartage) have been purchased from OP-2 for Rs.3,500/-.
- The complainant sent the complaint to OP-1 vide e-mail dated 07.03.2008. The complainant also sent a legal notice to OPs. The complainant has filed an undated inspection report vide Swati Structure Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Relevant portion is as follow
“3. Cracks have developed in tiles at many places. The nature of cracks vary. At some places the whole tile is cracked, whereas at some other places only part (Sides of tiles and/or at the middle of tile) cracks exist. (Picture 1 & 2).
- This phenomenon of development of cracks in tiles occurs only when tiles have inferior breaking strength, i.e. less than the prescribed value of 1200 min. in the IS15622:2006, for commercial application. Therefore, it is inferred that the tiles have inferior breaking strength.
- The edges of four tiles, at junctions at many places, do not meet at same plain, this shows that the tiles are warped. (Picture-4).
- Though the office is in use for only 13 months, the coating of the tiles has deteriorated almost throughout the office. The ties have faded and lost their texture/sheen besides found broken at some places. The edges of the tiles, too, have withered at many places. This cannot be adjudged as normal wear and tear, because of two facts.
-
Inference:
With the above findings, it is established that the tiles are of substandard and of inferior quality, and are not fit to be used as Floor Tiles.
- The invoice dated 03.03.2008 indicates the purchase of floor tiles from OP-2, with no mention of OP-1 in the provided invoice. Additionally, the complainant has not presented any evidence demonstrating how OP-1 functions as an importer/manufacturer of the mentioned tiles.
- The complainant has acknowledged installing the tiles despite observing the cracks and chipped corners in the said tiles. The complainant has not provided an explanation for choosing to install the defective tiles instead of returning them. Moreover, there is a lack of documentary evidence to establish that the tiles were defective at the time of delivery. An undated inspection report submitted by the complainant explicitly specifies that the inspection was conducted after 13 months of office use. This report is insufficient to establish the presence of defects in the tiles at the time of their initial delivery.
- Hence the complaint being devoid of merit is dismissed. File to be consigned to record room. Orders to be uploaded.
