By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant constructed a house with an area of 1850/- square feet and in order to fix the flooring he contacted the first opposite party and the officials of the opposite party visited the site and introduced many type of tile patterns through the catalog. The opposite party is doing business in the name of Marble land and the official name of the same is Mangattil Trade Link (P) limited. The complainant was taken to the show room of the second opposite party by the first opposite party and the complainant was convinced with tiles and its price as well as quality. In consultation with opposite party the complainant decided to fix black granite named galaxy in balcony, stair case, steps, kitchen top etc. In other area it was deiced to fix tiles as instructed by the opposite parties. One Mr. Jayesh was leading the officials and also the workers. The opposite party supplied and fixed flooring tiles except in kitchen. But on after fixing it was found the tile was not flat and there was convexity, the joint was not level, in short, floor looks very bad in appearance. The opposite party fixed 600x600 tiles in kitchen and work area also the same. Complaint noticed the floor was not level as well as the side tile was also not level. The opposite party had shown black granite slabs with twinkling dots and it is having a rate of Rs.102/per square feet. The same was agreed and when it was fixed, half of the granite supplied was not having the twinkling dots. The complainant enquired the value of the slab and it was found worth Rs.80/per square feet. At about 344 sqft was not seen desired quality. The opposite party collected Rs.17 per square feet to fix the tile and the complainant supplied cement, sand and other required materials as demanded by the opposite party workers. The house was built with hard earned money and the complainant was put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The opposite parties stated that the tile supplied was manufactured by a company named Kajaria. The complainant spent 15,000/- rupees to buy materials demanded by the workers while the tile and granite work was in progress. The amount spent was for purchasing sand, M sand, cement, some packets with latricete etc. The complainant paid Rs.1,97,185/- to the opposite party as the price of tile. But the opposite party issued bills for Rs 57578.85,37160.09,51520.63 etc. and Rs.35139/- for the price of granite etc. The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the nature of the tiles supplied and laid.
2. The complainant submit that the opposite party informed the company officials and they had inspected floor and then promised that they will replace the tiles at their own expenses. The opposite parties did not supply good tile expected from them and they scolded also the complainant. The opposite party official had taken photographs, video of the floor and sample pieces of tiles from the house. But thereafter till, nothing is done to rectify the defect. Complainant contacted the opposite parties and they assured that they will do the needful. While the complainant contacted company officials, they stated that the tiles are not manufactured by them. But the opposite parties one and two stated the tiles are manufactured by Kajaria company.
3. The complainant made a detailed enquiry of the work done by the opposite parties and found that the entire flooring is to be replaced. The complainant except an expense of Rs.2,00,000/- to rectify the defects. The tile as well as the work done are not proper and the entire family of the complainant is suffering mental agony due to the defective service and product from the side of opposite party. The complainant contacted the opposite parties to rectify the defect but informed that the entire tile is to be repacked and that can be done by the company alone and the company is not prepared to do the same. The complainant submit that the bills were for the product as well as labor cost issued on 04/05/2017,22/05/2017,06/05/2017 and the work was completed in August 2017. The complainant being a non-resident Indian wanted to redress the grievance at the earliest occasion and he claims 2,50,000/- to replace the defective slabs and lay the same and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with cost.
4.. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the first opposite party did not appear hence set experte. The second opposite party entered appearance and filed version and affidavit. The third opposite party entered appearance, filed version, affidavit and documents. The second and third opposite party filed argument note also.
5.. The second opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The second opposite party submitted that they are a private limited company which only engaged in retail sale of ceramic tiles, granite tiles, marble tiles, etc of different manufactures. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had visited the second opposite party for enquiry regarding various floor and wall tiles and they are entertained by them providing details of tiles, quality, price etc to them. The complainant purchased mixed tiles of floor and wall of different manufactures from the second opposite party. But the opposite party submit that the opposite party and staff inspected and measured with their workers who fixed the tiles of the complainant is not correct. The second opposite party have no workers for fixing or laying of tiles. The opposite party denied the statement that they inspected, measured the work site of the complainant. It is also stated that the person named Jayesh was not sent by the second opposite party to the work site of the complainant and Mr. Jayesh is not a worker of the second opposite party. The opposite party denied that they fixed 600x600 tiles in kitchen and work area as alleged by the complainant and they never laid any such tiles in the kitchen or work area of the complainant. The opposite party denied that they collected Rs.102 per square feet for black granite, from the complainant. The complainant purchased 344.5 square feet of granite tiles from the second opposite party and second opposite party collected only Rs.89.08 per square feet for the granite tiles from the complainant. But the opposite party submitted that they never fixed or laid the tiles in the work site and never collected laying charge from the complainant. The contention of the second opposite party is that they are only retailers and not the manufacturer and whatever defect is noticed in the tiles are due to the manufacturing defect and such tiles are to be replaced or refunded the cost only by the manufacturer. The opposite party submit that when the complainant informed the defect of the tiles, it was immediately reported to the manufacturing company and the men of the manufacturing company had visited and inspected the work site of the complainant and it was told the entire defects should be rectified by them to the satisfaction of complainant. The second opposite party has taken a contention that complaint is defective since the manufacturer of the tile is not party to the proceedings. The opposite party issued invoice for bill for the full amount received from the complainant towards the purchase of the tiles including tiles involved in the matter. Regarding the allegation of bill amount the opposite party totally denied the contention of the complainant. The opposite party had issued invoice of Rs.16,874.87 for the wall tiles purchased by the complainant on 24/05/2017. According to opposite party value of tiles purchased by the complainant was about Rs.1,63,134.41. The complainant paid only Rs 1,30,000/- through two different cheques of Canara bank. The complainant never paid cash to the opposite party. The contention is that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.33134.41 to the opposite party as balance cost of the tiles. The averment of the opposite party is that the complainant raised all the allegations only when the second opposite party demanded the balance amount of 33134.41 rupees from the complainant and the complainant never informed any complaint regarding the tiles purchased by the complainant from the opposite party to till. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant himself selected tiles to his satisfaction by giving delivery of the tiles the complainant received tiles in good condition and without any defects. The opposite party contented that the complaint ought to have informed the second opposite party regarding the defects noticed in the tiles before fixing or laying of the tiles as insisted by the manufacturer which is legibly printed on every box in which contain the tiles, but the complainant never informed the second opposite party such defects in the tiles purchased from the opposite party and so the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost of the second opposite party.
6.. The third opposite party filed version stoutly opposing the allegations and averments in the complaint.
7. The third opposite party submitted that they are a limited company only engaged in manufacturing of ceramic and vitrified tiles of various sizes. Since last 30 years the third opposite party is in this industry and they received winners of super brand awards 10 times in a row. The third opposite party is not involved in marble, granite and such other natural stone business. The third opposite party submitted that they or their staff not inspected and measured the floor with their workers. They do not have workers for fixing or laying of tiles. The opposite party never inspected or measured the work site of complainant or sent any workers to inspect or measure the work site of the complainant. The person named Jayesh was also not sent by the third opposite party to the work site of the complainant and the third opposite party even not known about the so-called Jayesh. The opposite party submit that they never laid or fixed 600x600 tiles in the kitchen and work area as alleged by the complainant. The third opposite party submitted that the complainant has admitted that the floor on which the 600x600 tiles laid was not level. It is submitted that in such circumstances where the flow is not leveled properly, such complaints as mentioned in the complaint will arise. The opposite party submitted that they never collected Rs.102/- per square feet for black granite tiles from the complainant and the granites are not manufactured or sold by the third opposite party. The submission of the third opposite party is that they never fixed or laid the tiles in the work site of the complainant or never collected laying charge at all from the complainant as the third opposite party only manufacturing Kajaria branded ceramic and verified tiles. The third opposite party have no such workers to lay tiles as alleged in the complaint. The third opposite party submitted that when the defects were informed by the complainant the second opposite party reported the matter to third opposite party and the third opposite party visited and inspected the work at the work site of the complainant. The third opposite party never noticed any defects in the ceramic tiles manufactured by them. The only defects noticed was in the laying processes. It was noticed that no sufficient space is seen provided between the tiles for expansion during change of season. The opposite party had legibly printed the precautions to be taken and instructions to be followed by each customer before laying or fixing the tiles of various sizes. It is submitted there is an instruction that the nominal size we maintained is 600x600 mm, the work size will be as per ISO certifications. As part of intentionally accepted laying practices, use 2 to 5 mm spacer are recommended.
8. Opposite party submitted that no complaints are entertained once the tile is laid. The opposite party denied that they had promised the complainant that the entire defects should be rectified or replaced the tiles by the third opposite party as stated in the complaint. The third opposite party never collected any amount from the complainant or issued any invoices, bills for the amount received from the complainant towards the purchase of the tiles including tiles involved in the matter. The complainant never informed any complaint regarding the tiles purchased by the complainant to the third opposite party at any point to time. While inspected the site the complainant had admitted that he himself selected the tiles to his total satisfaction. The submission of third opposite party is that the complainant ought to have informed the third opposite party regarding the defects noticed in the tiles before fixing or laying of the tiles as insisted by the manufacturer which is legibly printed on every boxes. The complainant never informed the third opposite party any of such defects in the tiles manufactured by third opposite party. The submission of third opposite party is that the complainant never suffered any financial loss, mental agony or other hardships due to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of third opposite party. The third opposite party is no way liable to replace the tiles or to pay any amount towards cost of tiles or compensation or cost to the complainant and the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
9. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B8. Ext. A1 is retail invoice original dated 04/052017 (3 pages). Ext. A2 (series) is photo graphs. Ext. A3 is copy of bill for Rs.1,97,185. Ext. A4 is bill worth Rs.1,63,135/-. Ext B1 is copy of authorization letter. Ext. B2 (series) is copy of invoice for Rs.57578.82.,51520.53,37160.09, 16874.87 Ext. B3 is copy of D and O licenses issued by Secretary of Alamkode panchayat, dated 05/07/2017. Ex.t B4 is copy of dealer certificate. Ext. B5 is copy of ledger which shows balance as Rs.33134.41. Ext. B6 is copy of photographs regarding kajaria ceramic limited tiles 5 pages. Ext. B7 is copy of pressed ceramic tiles specification (first revision) of August 2017. Ext. B8 is copy of conformity of Kajaria tiles para meters to Indian standards / specification floor tiles. The expert commissioners report marked as Ext. C1.
10. Heard the complainant and opposite parties perused affidavit and documents and also notes of argument filed by the second and third opposite parties.
The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether the articles involved in the complainant were defective or not
- Relief and cost
11. Point No.1 &2
The case of the complainant is that the product availed from the opposite party was defective and after the laying work the floor appeared not well. The product delivered was not the product ordered. According to complainant there was twinkling dots but supplied granites were not having the twinkling dots. The rate according to complainant for the black granite slab Rs.102/ per square feet. So the allegation is 344 square feet slabs was not having its desired quality. The complainant submitted the opposite party had not issued proper bills stating exact amount despite repeated request, to correct the defects the opposite parties did not heed to his request. So, the prayer is to allow Rs.2,50,000/- along with compensation of 1,00,000/- and cost.
12. The second opposite party contended that they are only the dealers if at all any defect to the product that is to be rectified by the manufacturer, the third opposite party. The second opposite party submitted that they do not have workers as alleged by the complainant and they did not undertake the work of the complainant. The second opposite party submitted that immediately on receipt of complaint reported the same to the third opposite party and the third opposite party had agreed to redress the grievance of the complainant after inspecting the allegations of the complaint. The second opposite party also stated that the tiles purchased by the complainant are 600x600 size ceramic tiles and that the defects pointed out by the complainant are quite common in the case of ceramic tiles and that are permissible under in this standard and cannot be considered as replaceable or the value refundable. The same was very well and legibly explained in the catalog and the same was made to understand the complainant. The assurance given by the manufacturer was, if it is seen exceeded the limit given in the catalog, not as claimed by the complainant. The second opposite party also contended that they had issued invoice of Rs.16874.87/- for the wall tiles purchased by the complainant in addition to the bills stated by the complainant. The opposite party also contended all the invoices are paid by cheque and none of the amount was paid us cash. According to the second opposite party total value of tiles purchased by the complainant was Rs.1,63,134.41 and the complainant paid only Rs.1,30,000/- and that was paid through two cheques of Canara bank. The complainant still is bound to pay 33,134.41 to the opposite party as balance amount. The complainant raised the issue only when the opposite party raised the claim for balance amount of Rs.33134/-. It is also submitted that the complainant himself selected the tiles after satisfying on thoroughly examination of the catalog and tiles, there was no compulsion from the side of opposite party. The complainant ought to have informed the opposite party regarding the defects noticed in the tiles before fixing or laying of the tiles itself as insisted by the manufacturer which is legibly and visibly printed on every box in which contain the tiles.
13. The third opposite party also contended that they never employed any workers or no inspection or measure the work sight of the complainant had been initiated. As per the contention of the complainant itself the issues of the complainant related to laying of tiles and if the floor is not levelled properly complaints as mentioned in the complaint will raise. It is submitted that they have not sold black granite tiles and not collected Rs.102 per square feet for black granite tiles as claimed by the complainant. The specific contention of the third opposite party is, since 2006 the Indian standard was adopted by the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar, Marg, New Delhi 110 002 by the flooring, wall finishing and roofing sectional committee for flooring, wall and roofing tiles of different qualities and sizes had been approved by the civil engineering division council. The standard was published in 2006 as a general specification or ceramic tiles for different water absorption categories to cover all the important requirements, superseding separate specifications for each category of ceramic. The contention is that the products has got certain basic futures and those are arrived according to the standards specified by the Bureau of Indian standards and the manufactures are not permitted to make deviation from the range of those standards. In this complaint the contention of the opposite party is that there is no deviation from the prescribed standard and the liability of the manufacturer arises only when there is variation as against prescribed standard. It is also submitted by the third opposite party that the commission issued in this complaint also do not reveal any manufacturing defect to the tiles.
14. In this complaint complainant produced Ext. A3 and A4. Ext. A3, it can be seen that there is a figure of 1,97,185.50 and 1,63,135.50 respectively which do not speak what exactly they are. But the second opposite party produced retail invoice in favor of the complainant issued by the second opposite party with 4 pages. The figures mentioned there in is 57578.82, 51520.63, 37160.09, 16874.87 respectively.
15. The total amount as per Ext. B2 series is 1,63,134. 41. Ext. B5 shows that the debit amount as 1,63,134.41 the credit amount as 130000.00 and balance amount as 33134.41. Moreover Ext. B5 document the credit amount was paid through two cheques drawn in favor of Canara Bank. The opposite party had contended the same in their version, but the complainant do not explain about the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties. The Ext. B2, it is stated that the quantity of granite tiles as 344.50 and the rate shown as 89.08 per square feet. The complainant has got a grievance that the opposite party realized Rs.102 per square feet and on his enquiry, it was revealed as Rs.80 per square feet. So, there is no supportive evidence regarding the rate of granite slab as claimed by the complainant. The opposite party also contended the total value of the product purchased by the complainant was Rs.1,63,134.41 and the complainant paid only Rs.1,30,000.00/- towards the amount. The averment of opposite party is that while the opposite party demanded the balance amount the complainant raised issue of defective product.
16. The complainant herein issued an expert commission to assess the defects as alleged in the complaint and the commission report is seen filed by the expert commissioner and the same stands marked as Ext. C1. The report it is averred that: -” on inspection it is noticed that there has been a minute bend on the surface of some tiles. Due to this bending the surface of the tiles were not properly coincide with each other, so that some minute irregularities are seen on the floor of the house of petitioner. Besides, the door leading to kitchen is difficult to close due to scratching the door to tile floor. Hence it is needed to change the tile in the part of the door of the kitchen “. The report is filed by the senior geologist Mr. Ragahavan .M Malappuram of the District office of mining & Geology Mini civil station, Manjeri Malappuram District. The perusal of the report will not reveal the exact extent of bending of the surface of the tiles and whether it is permissible extend as claimed by the opposite parties. The report also not explained whether it is related to laying manual work or not. The report even though suggested change of the tile on the part of the door of kitchen, do not explain the extent and the cost required for the work as suggested. It is surprising to note that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties filed any objection regarding the report of the expert commissioner. So, this commission is not able to arrive a conclusion about the exact extend of grievance of the complainant. But considering the entire averments and documents the case of the opposite party is more truthful and they could substantial their averments through the documents also. It is pertinent to note that the complainant as per contention of the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.33,134.41 rupees to the opposite party. That Being the fact, it will not be proper to consider report of the commissioner that need to change the tile on the part of the door of kitchen and minor irregularities on the floor of the house of petitioner to direct to pay compensation and cost to the petitioner accordingly.
In the above fact and circumstances, we do not find merit in the complaint and so we dismiss this complaint.
Dated this 29th day of July , 2022.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: Retail invoice original dated 04/052017 (3 pages).
Ext.A2: (series) is photo graphs
Ext A3: Copy of bill for Rs.1,97,185.
Ext A4: Bill worth Rs.1,63,135/-.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B8
Ext.B1: Copy of authorization letter.
Ext.B2: (series) is copy of invoice for Rs.57578.82.,51520.53,37160.09, 16874.87
Ext.B3: Copy of D and O licenses issued by Secretary of Alamkode panchayt, dated
05/07/2017.
Ext.B4: Copy of dealer certificate.
Ext.B5: Copy of ledger which shows balance as Rs.33134.41.
Ext.B6: Copy of photographs regarding kajaria ceramic limited tiles 5 pages
Ext.B7: Copy of pressed ceramic tiles specification (first revision) of August 2017.
Ext.B8: Copy of conformity of Kajaria tiles para meters to Indian standards /
specification floor tiles.
Ext. C1: Expert commissioners report
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
VPH
