CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 12th September 2013
Present : Smt. Seena.H, President
:Smt. Preetha.G.Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 08/04/2013
CC/70/2013
K. Mohandas,
S/o. Kompi,
Residing at Manjirayil Neerkkottu Kalathil,
Chittur Village, Chittur Taluk. - Complainant
(By Adv. K. Muralidas & Adv. S. Sujana)
Vs
1. P.T. Rasheed,
Managing Director,
ANR Designer Tiles Ltd.,
VIII/736, B- NIDA, Kanjikkode,
Kanjikkode P.O, Palakkad
2. ANR Designer Tiles Ltd.,
VIII/736, B- NIDA, Kanjikkode,
Kanjikkode P.O, Palakkad,
Rep. By its Managing Director P.T. Rasheed. - Opposite parties
(By Adv. Shiju Kuriakose)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Facts of the case:
The complainant was attracted by the advertisement appeared in Newspapers and approached the opposite party on 17/01/2013. The staff of the opposite party made the complainant believe that the tiles manufactured by the opposite party is non defective and long lasting. So that the complainant decided to purchase the tiles of brand named Lotus T-135 @ 28/- per tile. On the same day itself an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid in
advance to the opposite party. Later on the tiles were brought to the complainant's house as three consignments. On 8/2/2013 the balance amount of Rs. 25,400/- was paid by the complainant to Mujeeb, sales staff of the opposite party. The complainant has taken a gold loan from the Punjab National Bank, Chittur Branch to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for this purpose. The complainant started the work of levelling and laying the tiles on 27/2/2013. At that time the complainant noticed several cracks in the tile and the fact was informed to the opposite party. The sales staff of the opposite party named Mr. Mujeeb verified the tiles assured that they will do the needful. But it was not done. Almost all the tiles were found broken. It is the manufacturing defect.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- as the cost of the tiles and other materials and labour charges of tiling along with the cost.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the contentions put forward by the complainant.
Opposite party admits that the complainant approached the opposite party institution for purchasing tile. After verifying the tiles the complainant selected the tiles and ordered the same. Opposite party brought the tiles to the complainant's house as in three times. The opposite party selling the tiles only after verification of its quality. Scientific methods can be adopted to check the quality of the tiles. If there is any manufacturing defect opposite party is ready to replace the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A8 marked. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and filed report, marked as Ext.C1. Commissioner was cross examined as CW1.
Issues to be considered are:
Whether the tiles sold by the opposite party is having manufacturing defect?
If so, what is the relief and cost?
Heard the matter.
Issues I & II
Complaint is regarding the manufacturing defect of the tiles purchased by him from the opposite party. On 17/1/2013 the complainant approached the opposite party and selected the tiles of brand named Lotus T-135 @ 28 per tile. The opposite party staff convinced the complainant regarding the quality of the tiles which the complainant intended to purchase. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the opposite party on 17/1/2013 itself (Ext.A1). The tiles was brought in to the house of the complainant by the opposite party in three times. The last consignment was brought on 7/2/2013. On 8/2/2013 the staff of the opposite party came and accepted the balance amount of Rs. 25,400/- and endorsed on the reverse of Ext.A1. The complainant started the work of laying the tiles on 27/2/2013. Meanwhile the complainant noticed cracks in majority of tiles. Complainant informed the fact to the opposite party. The opposite party staff inspected the same. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and filed detailed report (Ext.C1). In Ext.C1, the Commissioner specifically stated the conditions of the tiles. "ഏകദേശം 1800 Sqft. വിസ്തീÀണ്ണമുളള മുറ്റത്ത് പുതിയതായി tiles ഒട്ടിച്ചിട്ടുളളതായി കാണപ്പെട്ടു. ടി ടൈയിÂസിÂ ഒന്നോ രണ്ടോ ടൈയിÂസ് ഒഴികേയുള്ള മുഴുവന് ടൈലുകളിലും crack ഉളളതായി കണ്ടു. 100 ഓളം ടൈലുകÄ crack ആയി മാറ്റിവെച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അവ കൈകൊണ്ട് അമÀത്തുമ്പോÄ പൊട്ടുന്നുമുണ്ട്."
Commissioner also noted that the small pieces of tiles were kept dumped in the courtyard.
The contention raised by the opposite party is that the cracks in the tiles are due to the over weight effected on the tiles. In the answers filed by the opposite party for the interrogatories filed by the complainant it is stated that the tile which were layed are having capacity of bearing up to 5 tons. If it is so it is not possible to cracks almost all the tiles which are layed. More over the tiles which are not layed also having the cracks.
So it is very clear that the tiles sold by the opposite party is defective. The
complainant himself admitted that the tiles were brought to the house by the opposite party. So that the transportation charge cannot be considered. Any how the complainant has layed all the tiles in the courtyard. So the cost for the supporting materials and labour charge are essential.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 12th September, 2013
Sd/-
Smt. Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha. G. Nair
Member
Sd/- Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Receipt (original) issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 17/1/2013.
Ext.A2 - Brochure (original) of the opposite party.
Ext.A3 - Gold Loan Receipt (copy) issued by the Punjab National Bank, Chittur Branch to the complainant dated 25/2/2013.
Ext.A4 - Certificate (original) issued by the Punjab National Bank, Chittur Branch regarding the gold loan taken by the complainant.
Ext.A5 - Receipt (original) issued by Raveendran. K regarding the amount paid by the complainant for M Sand dated 27/2/2013.
Ext.A6 - Lawyer Notice (copy) send by the complainant to the opposite party dated 15/3/2013.
Ext.A7 - Postal receipt dated 15/3/2013
Ext.A8 - Acknowledgement Card addressed to opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Commissioner Report
Report submitted by Advocate Commissioner
Ext.CW1 - K. Hanitha (Advocate Commissioner).
