Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/342/2018

Ramachandra Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Arvind Ceramics & Others - Opp.Party(s)

T.V.Sekar

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:04.01.2012                                                                  

                                                                     Date of disposal          :30.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

 PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                            : MEMBER-1

                                 THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.342/2018

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 30^THDAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Ramachandra Rao,

No.2, Venus colony I street,

•  

Chennai-600 018….Complainant

 

•  

 

1.  

Rep.by its Managing Director

No.65A, Kundrathur Road,

Porur, Chennai-600 116.

(Near Vignaswara Nagar Bus Stop).

 

2.   M/s.Aravind Ceramics,

Rep by its Managing Director

No.135, Eldms Road,

Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

 

    3.   The Managing Director,

          M/s.Sunrise Ceramic Industries,

          Nagagam Road,

          Thangadh-363530

          Gujarat State.

                                                                                       ….     Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for the complainant                     :M/s.T.V.Sekar and

                                                                   C.K.Lavanyavathi

 

Counsel for the opposite party 1 to 3               : M/s.V.Yurendara kumar

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.   : PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the Opposite parties to replace the entire order placed by the complaint vide Bill no.4377 dated 17.11.2010 and bill no.272 dated 15.06.2011 with quality tiles and fix the same at their own cost price of the tiles sold to the complainant and the higher quality tiles and the opposite parties jointly and severally to repay the entire amount of Rs.41586/- together with interest calculated at the rate of 18%  per annum from 17.11.2010  on Rs.9636/- and from 15.06.2011 on Rs.9650 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- or any other higher amount toward compensation and damages for mental agony and cost of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.05/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.342/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he purchased floor and wall tiles from the 2^nd opposite party which is a show room of the 1^st opposite party.

S.No.	Date	Bill no.	Amount
1.	17.11.2010	4377	Rs.9350.00
2.	15.06.2011	272	Rs.9650.00

The complainant stated that under the bill no.4377 dated 17.11.2010 he purchased 12x8 Ashirwad 9035-8 boxes, 12x8 Mril plain Majantha-6 boxes, 8x8 Simco Arch Majantha-4 boxes 16x16, DF7 Cmino Ivory-14 boxes and 16x16 XF7028-2 boxes and he purchased the above item for use in his house.  The complainant stated that under the bill no.272 dated 15.06.2011 he purchased floor wall tiles AWZ 12x8 9002 PRE-10 boxes, 9210-10 boxes and 1W1 12x8 2379 PRE-10 boxes and he  purchased the above item for use in his house. The complainant stated that in respect of the tiles for his house even within two weeks of laying the complainant found that a dozen tiles in different places in the bathroom floor were looking dull and faded.  The surface finish became cement gray and rough instead of pink.  The complainant stated that it looked as if the tiles were half baked and not cured and it is imminent that the sold used for making those tiles must have been of poor quality. The complainant stated that he wrote to the 2^nd opposite party about the problem and after repeated reminders the 2^nd opposite party sent a person for inspection and the person who inspected on behalf of 2^nd opposite party accepted that it was indeed a quality problem and immediately he accepted and promised to replace the floor tiles free of cost. The complainant stated that he was shocked and surprised that after accepting to replace the tiles in full the 2^nd opposite party sent only a dozen tiles and the complainant appointed the person and told him to remove the bad ones and fix the new ones. The complainant stated that his view is that not only the other tiles can get damaged while removing the bad ones and it is impossible to maintain the level when you are replacing the tiles. The complainant stated that the tiles purchased the 12x8 wall tiles the color was faded and the background color was showing up visibility.  It was shocking because they were not even two months old. The complainant stated that after this jeopardy within a few days the 50% of wall tiles in bathroom have already faded and the fading.  The complainant did report on 16.08.2011 with 2^nd opposite party. The complainant stated that he wrote to the 2^nd opposite party on 16.08.2011, he had faced by purchasing such poor quality tiles. The complainant stated that on 25.08.2011 the 2^nd opposite party wrote to the complainant that the tiles purchased by the complainant are meant for budgeted house and colour variation and a small bend may occur. The 2^nd opposite party agreed to do the best and assured to rectify the problem. The complainant stated that his engineer who inspected these bathroom tiles in both the places was of the opinion that both wall and floor tiles were of poor quality and the whole lot has to be replaced.  The complainant stated that he was never informed that when he purchased the tiles the goods were of inferior quality and mean for lower income group houses or budget houses as stated in the 2^nd opposite parties letter.   If at all the complainant would have been informed them he would not have gone for a higher quality. The complainant issued a legal notice on 14.09.2011 to the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to repayment of entire amounts of Rs.41586/- quality tiles and in the alternative spent by him with interest and for other reliefs. 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY 1 AND ADOPTED BY 2^ND AND 3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The Opposite party denied all the averments and allegations except those are specifically replied. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had placed orders and purchased the tiles only after verifying the nature of the quality and other aspects of the tiles.  The complainant was informed the methods of laying the tiles only through experienced personnel in the field.  The opposite party not aware of the ways and means the tiles were fixe by the complainant.  The instructions as to the laying of tiles are clearly given in all boxes of tiles sold.  Further submitted that complainant had failed to follow the instructions spelt out had committed a poor work of tiles fixing inexperienced personnel. The opposite party had admitted during the alleged inspection about the quality of tile and the complainant is put to very strict proof of the same. The complainant decided to remove the alleged defective tiles replace them with new ones for at no point of time we had offered our services in this regard.  It is further submitted that the complainant laid the tiles with inexperienced person without following the instruction given in the box. The complainant alleged deficiency without any basis and has been filed only to get unlawful enrichment.  

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any defect in the product and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked on their side.The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on his side.

4.POINT NO :1

                        The complainant purchased floor and wall tiles from the 2^nd opposite party which is a show room of the 1^st opposite party under bill no. 4377 dated 17.11.2010 for Rs.9350/- and under Bill no.272 dated 15.06.2011 for Rs.9650/- and the above items were purchased for use in his house situated at veenus colony 1^st street alwarpet and also for the use in the flat belonging to his wife situated Mandra apartments north boag road T.Nagar and according to the complainant within two weeks laying the tiles at veenus  colony house a dozen of tiles in the bathroom floor were looking dull and faded and the surface finished became cement grey and rough instead of pink it is due to the tiles were half baked and not cured and those tiles were of poor quality for which the complainant were wrote to 2^nd opposite party and after repeated reminders the 2^nd opposite party sent a person for inspection who promised the replace the tiles free of cost but sent only a dozen tiles and later only the complainant came to know from the person appointed for laying tiles that a single defective tile cannot be replaced without removing the entire tiles and later within a few days the complainant found the 50% of wall tiles in the bathroom have already faded and the fading was spreading to rest of the tiles which was also reported to the 2^nd opposite party and the complainants engineer who inspected the tiles informed that the tiles were of poor quality and there was lot of complaints already inrespect of tiles manufacture by 3^rd opposite party and the complainant contended that he was never informed that the goods were of inferior quality and meant for budget houses as stated  in the 2^nd opposite party letter otherwise he would have gone for higher quality and therefore the complainant claim deficiency in service and prayed to replace the entire order placed by the complainant with quality tiles and in the alternative sought for repayment of entire amounts of Rs.41586/- spent by him with interest and for other reliefs. 

                5. But as per the version of the 1^st opposite party adopted by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party the purchase of the tiles by the complainant was admitted but it was contended that the complainant laid the tiles with inexperienced person  and by not following the instructions shown in the tiles box and further contended the opposite party never assured to rectify the problem and stated that they have given some tiles at the complainant request as he wanted to replace the defective tiles with new one and stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and denied the tiles were of poor quality. 

                 6. It is found from Ex.A1 to A6 that the complainant has purchased floor and wall tiles as stated in the complaint from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. Though the complainant stated that within two weeks of laying the tiles were looking dull and faded and there was change in color and further stated the tiles were of poor quality the complainant has not filed any photographs or engineers report to prove such contention. Further there is no proof to show that the 2^nd opposite party agreed to replace the tiles free of cost.  It is impossible to replace a particular defective tiles without damaging the other tiles.  Hence the entire tiles has to be replaced if some of the tiles were found defective.  There is no proof to show that the complainant has laid the tiles by engaging experienced person and by following the instruction given in the tiles box.  But at the same time in the reply given by the 2^nd opposite party 25.08.2011 which is marked as Ex.A8 it is stated that 12x8 wall tiles which were chosen by the complainant were meant for budgeted house and in that range of product color variation, small bend may occur and also stated that normally no manufacturer is giving replacement for 12x8 tiles complaints since it is a commodity item, but since the complainant is a regular customer they are doing best to rectify the problem.  By this reply indirectly the 2^nd opposite party has admitted that the product supplied were of substandard and not a quality one which further shows that the 2^nd opposite party has sold the tiles knowing fully well that it is of inferior quality and hence the color variation or  bend may occur which amounts to selling defective product and amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. This averment in reply marked as Ex.A8 was not stated by the opposite party in the written version.   In the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party in para.3 it is stated that the opposite party had given some tiles for replacement in the place of defective tiles at the request of the complainant which would again will go to show that the opposite parties admitted the defective nature of the tiles supplied and therefore has given some new tiles for replacement.  Though the complainant has stated that the entire tiles has to be replaced since it is of poor quality and sought for a direction to do the same free of cost by the opposite party there is no proof by the complainant that the entire tiles has to be replaced for its poor quality, further there is no proof filed by the complainant to claim a sum of Rs.41586/- with interest at 18% p.a. has been spent by the complainant for the replacement of tiles and hence, he is not entitled for the same. But on the other hand the facts as stated above prove that  the complainant was not informed about the poor quality of tiles at the time of his purchase by the opposite party and further having supplied substandard product by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party with a poor quality and thereby the complainant was put to hardship and mental agony for which the complainant has to be suitably compensated by the opposite parties 1 to 3 by paying Rs.25,000/- towards  compensation and hence it is found that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in having sold the defective and substandard product to the complainant.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2

          Based on findings given to point. No.1. since, the complainant was put to hardship and mental agony due to the selling of the poor quality and substandard product by the 1^st  and 2^nd  opposite parties and manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and hence the opposite parties are jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of complaint.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the selling of the poor quality and substandard product and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses. 

          The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30^th day of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	16.11.2010	2nd opposite parties –complainant order book.
Ex.A2	17.11.2010	1st opposite parties-complainant invoice/cash bill.
Ex.A3	30.11.2010	2nd opposite parties –complainant order book.
Ex.A4	30.11.2010	1st opposite parties-complainant invoice/cash bill.
Ex.A5	14.06.2011	2nd opposite parties –complainant order book.
Ex.A6	15.06.2011	1st opposite parties-complainant invoice/cash bill.
Ex.A7	16.08.2011	Complainant – opposite parties complaint along with courier receipt.
Ex.A8	25.08.2011	1st opposite parties-complainant letter.
Ex.A9	14.09.2011	Legal notice issued by the complainants counsel with ack card.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                                          -NIL-

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT