JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal No. 388/08 is the complainant and the appellant in Appeal No. 393/08 is he first opposite party in CC No. 388/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The CDRF has ordered the first opposite party/appellant in Appeal No. 393/08, the manufacturer of mosaic tiles to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,06,300/- and the second opposite party, dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 50,244/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint and also directed the first opposite party to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 19-10-2005 he placed orders for 2000 sq.feet of mosaic tiles at the rate of Rs. 81.06/ sq.ft from the first opposite party, manufacturer through the second opposite party, dealer. The first opposite party delivered the tiles on 24-11-2005 at the complainant’s residence. The Sales Manager of the first opposite party arranged the 3rd opposite party to lay tiles at the rate of Rs. 20/ sq. ft. After laying, while grinding and polishing, it was found that the tiles were of inferior quality. The tiles were found to be entirely different from that of the sample shown by the opposite party. It is seen that the half of the bottom layer is made up of gray cement for lessening the cost of production and only the upper half is made of while cement. After polishing, it was found all the sides have undergone discolouration in gray shade. The edges were broken due to manufacturing defect. Although the first opposite party sent certain workers to cure the defects the appearance of the tiles became worse. The complainant has claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 4,49,102/-. 3. The first opposite party has contended that the alleged defects has occurred not due to manufacturing defect but due to poor workmanship, improper laying and polishing. It is denied that it was the first opposite party who arranged laying. 4. Second opposite party has contended that he is only a dealer and cannot be made liable for manufacturing defects. 5. The 3rd opposite party stood exparte. 6. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, DWs 1 to 3, Exts. A1 to A6, C1, C2 and B1 to B4. 7. The Forum relying on the report of the expert Commissioner and the photographs produced found that there was manufacturing defects to the tiles. The Forum ordered the first opposite party to pay Rs. 1,06,300/- deducting 25% from the purchase price of the tiles. The amount deducted is Rs. 35,433/-. The Forum also ordered the second opposite party, the dealer to pay the commission received by him in the sale of the tiles ie, Rs. 50,244/-. 8. It is the contention of the appellant/complainant that the Forum ought not to have deducted 25%. The above amount has been deducted mentioning that it is for enjoyment of the tiles by the complainant. The complainant/appellant has also sought for the amount required for removal of the defective tiles as mentioned by the Commissioner ie, Rs. 12,000/- and also Rs. 40,000/- that he paid for laying and also Rs. 7,000/- required for the materials for laying. 9. It is the contention of the appellant/manufacturer that the tiles ought to have been subjected to laboratory examination vide Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. We find that the Forum has extensively reproduced the relevant portions of Exts. C1, report of the Commissioner. It is seen that the Commissioner has also produced Ext.C2 series of photographs. The Commissioner has reported that there was discolouration to the tiles and the edges were found chipped and damaged. The representative sample out of 100 tiles selected in the living room almost 65 Nos. were found to have varying degrees of discolouration in the edges. It is mentioned that almost 65% of the tiles are defective. Only a few have straight edged finish. It is noted that when a sample tile was examined thoroughly that the discolouration was found in the full depth of the tile and started from the base of the tile which appeared to be of gray cement. It is also mentioned that in two of the rooms wherein attempts were made to rectify the defects it did not improve the appearance at all. It is also reported that the only option is to dismantle the entire mosaic tiles and relay with other tiles. The cost of removing the existing tiles is mentioned as Rs. 12,000/-. 10. As pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant the amount given for labour charges for laying is Rs. 40,000/-. He had also claimed a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards the cost of material. 11. The contention that Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act ought to have resorted to cannot be upheld as the defects in the tiles are visible. The expert Commissioner has also mentioned that the entire depth of the tiles had discolouration. 12. We find that there is no justification for deducting 25% allegedly for enjoyment of the tiles by the complainant. It was a new house that was constructed. Discolouration of the tiles and the breaking of the edges have considerably affected the elegance of the building. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled for the amount deducted also ie, Rs. 35,433/-. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 12,000/- towards the removal of the laid tiles. As the extent is 2000 sq.ft, the complainant is also entitled for Rs. 40,000/-, the labour charges for laying. We find that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be reasonable towards the costs of materials required for laying. Altogether the complainant would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,98,733/- from the first opposite party with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint. The complainant would also be entitled for the rest of the amount as ordered from the second opposite party. In the result, Appeal No. 388/08 is allowed and Appeal No. 393/08 is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Sr. | 
