KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 146/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27-02-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANT Mr. Deepu Paul, Aged 36 years, S/o Paul, 36/2296, Azad Road, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 017. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Alias M. Cherian) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. NITCO Terrazzotiles (Pvt) Ltd., No. 63, St. Marks Road, Bangalore, Represented by its Managing Director. 2. Althaf Nina, Proprietor, Tropical Traders, Maharaja’s Stadium Shopping Complex, P.T. Usha Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-11, Represented by the Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Zulfikur Ahamed. 3. Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Door No. 31, Kebbhalla, Sunkabakott, Bangalore – 560 091. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC 482/2006 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The first opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 93,000/- towards the price of the defective tiles purchased and both the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The appeal is filed by the complainant as he is not satisfied with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased 2185 mosaic tiles for Rs. 1,24,553.19 from the first opposite party through the second opposite party dealer and that the tiles were laid by the 3rd opposite party who was arranged first and second opposite parties. After laying the tiles and when polishing it was found that the colours of the tiles are intermittently different and are of inferior quality and was having manufacturing defects. The complainant has sought for Rs.2,04,734/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. The first opposite party has contended that the tiles supplied tallied with the sample tiles and that the complainant has inspected the tiles and satisfied as to its quality and hence the complainant is not entitled for any amounts. It is also contended that the tiles are free from any manufacturing defects and that the defects if any are on account of incorrect laying. It is denied that the first opposite party arranged 3rd opposite party to lay the tiles. 4. The second opposite party has disclaimed liability on the ground that the transaction was directly in between the complainant and the first opposite party. 5. There is no appearance for the 3rd opposite party. 6. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant, PW2 expert Commissioner and DW1 the officer of the first opposite party and Exts. A1 to A7. 7. There was no appearance for the respondents before this Commission. 8. The Forum has relied on the report of the Commissioner ie, Ext.A7 and held that the tiles are having manufacturing defects and that the same have to be removed and fresh tiles laid. All the same, the Forum had deducted 25% from the price of the tiles paid by the complainant, towards the complainant enjoying the benefits of the tiles ever since the date of paving it. No amount was awarded towards the charges for dismantling the tiles. The complainant has filed the appeal aggrieved by the above 25% deduction and non awarding of the costs to be incurred for dismantling etc. 9. We find that Ext.P7 report was submitted by the expert Commissioner on inspection after notice to both sides and in the presence of the Counsel for the opposite party and the Assistant Marketing Manager of the first opposite party (DW1) and the representative of the second opposite party. The Commissioner in Ext.P7 has reported that approximately 40% of the tiles paved on the floor are different from the rest 60%. The Commissioner has reported in emphatic terms that the defects of the tiles were on account of manufacturing defect. It is also been noted that the flooring work has been left incomplete. It is also noted that the sides and edges of the tiles are seen scratched and broken. The joints of the tiles are visible and that the same destroyed the finishing and beauty of the floor. He has also reported that the defects cannot be rectified and that the entire floor will have to be dismantled and new flooring done. 10. We find that the purchase of the tiles and amount paid ie, Rs. 1,24,553.19 stands admitted. The complainant has also produced the invoice of purchase. We find that there is no scope for deducting 25% for the enjoyment of the above floor by the complainant. The order of the Forum in this regard is liable to be set aside. We find that the complainant is entitled the entire amount of purchase ie, 1,24,553.19 as well as the amount required for dismantling. The Commissioner has suggested a sum of Rs. 13,000/- as the amount that would be required for dismantling the tiles. It appears to us that the amount suggested by the Commissioner is only reasonable. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is modified as follows: The first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,553.19 plus Rs. 13,000/- and also costs of Rs. 1,000/-(there is no justification for making the second opposite party liable for paying the costs as has been ordered by the Forum). The first opposite party/first respondent is directed to make the payments within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% on the amount due from the date of this order. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER | 
