KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.648/04

JUDGMENT DATED 20.4.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER                                                                                   

1.      Bell Ceramic Ltd,

Wall & Floor Tiles,

Regd. Office ( Dora works)

Dora Village, Amod Taluk,

Bharuch District,

Gujarat – 392 230.

Reptd. by K.A.Nambiar,                            --  APPELLANTS

S/0 Nanu Kurup, Area Sales Manager,

Bell Ceramic Ltd.

2.      Kurikkal Building Products

Kurial Lane, Cherootty Road,

Kozhikode – 673 032

Reptd. by P.U.Kurian

Manager, Kurikkal Building Products.                                           

                             Vs.

Nagavally T.S.

D/3/54, C.H.Nagar Housing colony,

Chevarambalam P.O,                                         --  RESPONDENT

Kozhikode – 17.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/manufacturer and dealer of Ceramic tiles in OP.231/03 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode.  The appellants are under orders to replace the entire tiles with good quality tiles within one month failing which to pay a sum of Rs.43,717/-  and a compensation of Rs.5000/-  and cost of Rs.500/-.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased floor tiles worth Rs.21752/-  on 28.7.01  for laying in her house. She also purchased another 90 pieces.  Subsequently,   laying was done by an expert worker.  Later it was noticed that some bubbles came out of the  tiles and gradually it become bigger and some of it peeled off revealing ugly marks and scars.    After  repeated requests a senior executive of the opposite parties inspected the premises and identified the defects as manufacturing defects.  She has sought for getting the floor re-laid and also compensation.

3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the complainant has purchased low quality tiles and that the same were not laid properly also.  The allegation that the tiles   are  defective is denied. 

4. The evidence adduced consisted of  Exts.A1 to A9.

5. The Forum has  relied on Ext.A9, the minutes of inspection which is marked as Ext.A9 dated 26.2.03 wherein it is mentioned that on inspection, it was found that certain tiles have quality problems like pinholes, Air bubbles (oil bubbles) etc;.    It is mentioned in Ext.A9 that  the complainant was offered for  replacement of   the defective tiles only or de-rate the first quality to commercial quality and give the differential amount through the dealer.    The Forum has also relied on Ext.A6.  A6  is mentioned as the  assessment made by an assessor deputed by the company wherein  the cost of replacement is mentioned as Rs.43717.5.

6. We find that the fact of purchase of tiles from  the opposite parties have not been disputed.  As per Ext.A9 minutes, the opposite parties have admitted that certain tiles have quality problems like pinholes etc; and offered to replace the same/for payment.  It is pertinent to note that the minutes did not contain the extent of the defective tiles.  There is no reason as to why the number is not mentioned.  Anyway it is admitted that certain times were defective.  The counsel for the appellant has contended that Ext.A6 has not been prepared by an assessor deputed by the Company and that it has been prepared by a person hired by the complainant which appears to be true.  An Engineer deputed by the Company would not have suggested that much of amount.  Ext.A6 mentions the amount spent for purchase of tiles as well as for laying as Rs.31,717.5 and the expenses for relaying has Rs.43,717.5.  Of-course as contended by the counsel for the appellant   the complainant has not taken out any commission to assess independently  the  number of tiles that are defective and as to report whether replacement of the defective tiles alone could have been done.  All the same, it appears that in Ext.  A6 report, the amounts mentioned can be exaggerated to a certain extend.  It has also to be noted that it would be difficult to replace   certain tiles only.  In the circumstances, we find that it would be reasonable to modify the award of the Forum.  The order is modified as follows:

7. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards costs of replacement.  The direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rst.500 is sustained.    The amounts are to be paid within 3 months  from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled interest at 12% from 20.4.2011, the date of this order.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER