SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing opposite parties either to replace the entire floor tiles laid on the complainant’s residential building at the expense of opposite parties or to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant together with cost of the proceedings of the case alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Brief facts of complainant’s case is that the complainant had purchased Kajaria floor tiles for laying to his newly constructed house from OP No.1, the manufacturer of the tiles is OP No.2. Complainant made payment of Rs.2,39,360/- to the OP No.2. But just after one year from residing in the house, the colour of the floor tiles became faded. The complainant contacted OP No.2, the OPs were not ready either to replace the tiles with new one or to pay the price of the tiles. Complainant allege that he had spent Rs.4,00,000/- in total for the tiles and for the labour work. Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On the other hand OP No.1 contended that complainant has approached the OP1 and selected the tiles as his desire. Further stated that there was free delivery of tiles at the premises of the complainant. OPs denied the averment of complainant about the expense incurred to him of 4 lakhs. OPs pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect to the tiles laid in the complainant’s house. The colour fading as alleged by the complainant was due to falling of some chemicals or detergent from the side of complainant at the time of housewarming arrangements. OPs further contended that they never agreed to replace the defective tiles with new tiles. Further claimed that the tiles supplied to the complainant are of high quality having no manufacturing defect. OP1 pleaded that when the complainant complaint about the colour fading of the tiles, they informed the said fact to OP No.2, the manufacturer of the tiles. OP contended that if there is any manufacturing defect in the tiles, OP No.2 alone is responsible. Hence prayed for the dismissal of complaint against OP No.1.
After receiving notices OP NO.2 has not appeared before the commission and not contested the case. Hence OP No.2 was declared as ex-parte and proceeded against him.
While pending of the case, complainant has filed application for appointing an advocate commissioner and expert commissioner which was allowed. Advocate commissioner has filed report with the help of expert commissioner after inspecting the site- marked as Ext.C1 and C2.
The expert has reported that the tiles laid on the floor (Khajaria brand) has been fading in colour due to poor quality of the material. The plain coloured tiles is faded in most parts especially where there is more contact with water like kitchen, work area etc. The measurement of those tiles is taken from the site in front of the advocate commissioner, the complainant and OPs representatives. Following are the measurement of the faded tile which is to be replaced. Total 158.53 M2 (1705.78 Sft) tiles, demolishing charge – 5000, Waste disposal charge – 5000, Replacement of tile including labour (1sft =100 rupees) – 170500. It is reported that total amount required for demolishing the existing tiles and replacing it with new tiles is Rs.1,80,500/- including labour and material cost.
Here there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased tiles from OP No.1 and paid Rs.2,39,360/- as per invoice Ext.A1. Ext. A1 shows complainant had paid the loading charge Rs.1753/- also to OP No.1. There is also no dispute that the colour of tiles were faded. OP’s contention is that the alleged defect was occurred due to falling of chemicals or detergent from the side of complainant. Though OP1 has raised such a contention, it was not proved through any expert opinion. On the other hand the expert has categorically reported that colour fading was due to poor quality of the material. This evidence is not discarded by OPs. So there is no reason to disbelieve the report submitted by the expert Civil Engineer A Ext.C2. Here it is evident that there is manufacturing defect in the tiles in dispute.
Here OP1 submitted that if there is manufacturing defect, as a dealer they are not responsible. The said submission cannot be accepted. OP No.1 is an independent dealer and not an agent of the manufacturer of the tiles in question. Hence, he cannot wash off his hands after making a sale and shift his burden to the manufacturer. A consumer is primarily concerned with the person from whom he buys the goods, as privity of contract is between them. Ordinarily, it is for the dealer to take care of the complainants concerns. So OP1 also be held liable along with the manufacturer of the tiles (OP2). Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 and 2. The expert has reported that the total amount required for demolishing the existing tiles and replacing it with new tiles is Rs.1,80,500/-.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,80,500/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony happened to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the awarded amount Rs.2,30,500/-(1,80,500+50,000) carries interest 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties 1 and 2 under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019, for realization of the awarded amount.
Exts
A1-Invoice
B1-Dealer certificate
B2&B3- Invoice copy
C1-Advocate commissioner report
C2.- Expert Commissioner report
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
