Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/986/2022

PARAMJIT SINGH SULLAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NITCO LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SATYAM TANDON

28 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/986/2022
Date of Institution	:	21/12/2022
Date of Decision	:	28/8/2024

 

1. Paramjit Singh Sullar S/o S. Jasmer Singh Sullar, House no. 117, Sector 10-A Chandigarh.

2. Tejeshwar Singh Sullar s/o Paramjit Singh Sullar, House no. 117, Sector 10-A Chandigarh.

... COMPLAINANTs

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Nitco Limited, Nitco House, Seth Govind ram Jolly Marg. Kanjur Marg (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. 400 042.

2. Nitco Limited, SCO 367, 1st Floor, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana 134109

3. Aggarwal Sales, SCO 21, Sector 11, Panchkula

4. Banwari Lal & Sons, Showroom No. 1A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh

OPPOSITE PARTIES.

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Satyam Tandon, Advocate for complainant.
	:	None for OPs No.1&2
		Opposite party No.3&4 exparte.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainants were constructing a house at Sector 70, SAS Nagar Mohali in the year 2019 and the complainants purchased Nicto Tiles sold under the name and style of Novana Beige size 800x1600 mm to cover  flooring area of about 1800 sq. ft..  and  for the purchase of the said tiles the complainants paid a total consideration amount of Rs.1,62,080/-. The work of laying the tiles finished in the month of December 2021 and the complainants shifted in their house  in January 2022. While purchasing the said tiles it was assured to the complainants that these tiles are commercial grade and scratch resistant, and scratches won't come on it for years under normal everyday usage in a small family residence but to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant the tiles developed scratches within 4 months of usage and were utterly defective; had an innumerable number of shortcomings in their quality and were not at all up to the standard. That the matter was reported to the Nitco customer care team, and a representative visited the house of the complainants in April 2022 and he assured a resolution soon, but no solution was given. It is alleged that the tiles are substandard thus they have developed scratches so soon, the same amounts to unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed a legal notice dated 19.9.2022 was sent to the OPs but to avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their written statement stated that the complaint of the complainants thoroughly checked by the answering OPs through their officials who visited the place of complainants and found that there was no defect in tiles supplied by answering respondents and the complaint of the complainants is false and frivolous. The complainants were sold best quality tiles. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and the complaint of the complainants is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that there are So many intricate and complicated points are involved in this case and to prove these points elaborate evidence is required to be led/produced as such only the Civil Court has the competency and jurisdiction to decide the matter in question. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3&4 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 18.4.2023 they were proceeded against exparte.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainants is that after laying the tiles in question in their newly constructed house, the complainants discovered after few months only that the tiles are not scratch free as promised and assured by the OPs rather defective one  with various shortcomings in their quality. As per the case of the complainant the issue regarding defective tiles was reported to the manufacturer of the tiles i.e. Opposite Parties  No.1&2 but no solution was given from their side despite  the fact that one representative of the Opposite Parties visited the house of the complainants.
8. The stand taken by Opposite Parties is that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they have provided best quality tiles to the complainants also it has been stated that such like cases have complicated points and to prove these  points civil court is the competent authority to decide the matter in question.
9. After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear that the tile in questions were purchased by the complainant vide tax invoice Annexure C-1(colly). Annexure C-2 is the photograph showing the deep scratches  and gaps in between the tiles and the complainants aggrieved with the inactive approach of OPs the complainants issued legal notice Annexure C-3 but  even that was not replied by the OPs.
10. After going through the documents on record we are of the opinion that before purchasing the tiles in question the complainants must have enquired about the quality of the tiles which as per the case of the complainant was duly assured by the OPs No.1&2 that the tiles are of superior quality and durable. However, after laying the tiles in the newly constructed house, the complainants observed/discovered various faults and shortcomings in the tiles and the matter was reported to the Opposite Parties.
11. The Opposite Parties through their reply admitted that one representative was sent to the house of the complainants but have not placed any conclusive report regarding the same, which itself shows that the Opposite Parties have ignored the matter completely even by not replying to the legal notice sent to them.
12. To prove their case the complainants have placed on record the photograph Annexure C-2 and Annexure
    C-5 the affidavit of Blister Sh. Devesh Kumar who is a contractor for laying the tiles deposed in the affidavit that  the tiles installed have developed scratches and cracks within four months of installation and based on his experience such issue typically arise from the use of substandard materials in the tiles production indicating their poor quality. The complainant  has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Kerala passed on 27.2.2010 in case of Mr. Deepu Paul, vs Nitco Terrazzotiles (Pvt) Ltd. whereby the Commission has refunded the price of the tiles. Undoubtedly, due to the aforesaid act of the OPs the precious money and time of the complainants was wasted. Even the efforts of getting the solution from the Opposite Parties with regard to  the grievance failed due to inactive approach of the OPs.
13.  Hence,    in view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties No.1&2 are running their business in various countries globally being highly reputed company but the  assurances given by the them to the complainant before selling the tiles in question proved to be hollow and false, which caused a lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainants.  Hence, there is deficiency on the part of the OPs.
14. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, as it is proved on record that the Opposite Parties have supplied inferior quality tiles to the complainant, and for fixing the said tiles the complainant has also incurred money on the materials as is evident from Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-4. Hence, in our mind the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the tiles and material purchased by the complainant for fixing the same.  Hence, the  Opposite Parties are liable to refund Rs.1,27,792/- (cost of tile)+ Rs.1,15,690/- (cost of material)=Rs.2,43,482/-  with interest alongwith compensation and cost of litigation.
15. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹.2,43,482/-  to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

16. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
18.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
28/8/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member