By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

Complaint in short is as follows:-

1.         The complainant submitted that he purchased 190 pieces of vitrified floor tiles of the brand Somany by product name milky white – PRM with size of 800x800 mm from third opposite party on 18/01/2020 for an amount of Rs. 67,640/-. Soon after the purchase the tiles were paved by well experienced tile workers applying high quality of gum, cement and other materials required and the flooring works of the house were completed by the last week of February 2020 and the complainant started to live in the house with his family from 01/04/2020.

2.         But just within one week from that the complainant could notice some tiles have got a brown muddy line through it besides some black spots on many places and the complaint is seen developing day by day and now almost all tiles have got affected. The complainant immediately contacted the third opposite party and their sales staff Mr. Sahad visited the house. Thereafter few days it was informed the third opposite party that the complaint had been forwarded to the first and second opposite parties and their representatives will be visiting within few weeks when the covid pandemic restricts soften. During the month November 2020 Mr. Faisal, the representative of first opposite party visited the site and assured to come back after one month to verify whether the complaint affect more tiles and his visit took place after two months and he further assured that the complaint will be forwarded soon by him to the technical team of the first opposite party company and they will be visiting the site within few weeks. But meanwhile covid restrictions had started again all over nation and the visit by technical team occurred only during the month November 2021 and one Mr. Soorya, who introduced as technical team member of first opposite party along with Mr. Sahad visited the house of the complainant. It was admitted some manufacturing defect for tiles technically known as “nano coating” after done chemical examination using a liquid and he informed that it will be communicated to the first opposite party and the representative from the company will be contacting the complainant soon. But thereafter no body contacted and then the complainant contacted Mr. Fasal over phone and he assured that the complaint will be solved within one week but again no response was there.

3.         Thereafter the complainant contacted Mr. Avid, proprietor of third opposite party and thereafter on 22/08/2022 Mr. Faisal again contacted the complainant offering to pay a nominal amount of Rs. 10 to 15 per square feet to the complainant as compensation treating the tiles are of second or third quality products and pricing them in that level and paying back the price difference the first and lower quality tiles. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to redress his grievance.

4.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.

5.         The first opposite party admitted the purchase of 190 pieces vitrified floor tiles of the brand Somany by product name milky white from the third opposite party on 18/01/2020 for an amount of Rs. 67,640/-. But the opposite party submitted that the complaint is filed after two years of purchase of the tiles and so the complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party submitted that they had not insisted the complainant to purchase the tiles but he purchased the tiles according to his own whims’ and fancies.

6.         The opposite parties denied the averment that soon after purchase the tiles were paved on the floor by well experienced tile workers applying high quality of gum, cement, and other materials required and flooring works of the house were completed by the last week of February 2020 and the complainant started to live in the hose with family on 01/04/2020.  The opposite parties  denied the averment that the just within one week  giving much shock and surprise and also giving a high degree disappointment  to the complainant and his family , who were very eagerly waiting for the works of the house to be completed and were highly particular and queen on the neatness and the finishing of the house especially that of the floor and also on the quality of the tiles applied  could notice that some tiles have got a brown muddy line through it besides some black spots on many places as those are absolutely imaginary and fabricated only for the purpose of filing the complaint. The opposite parties denied the  allegation that the defect of the tiles had caused to the complainant and his family high degree of mental agony and trauma for which they never deserve by the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable and further the complainant have to astonish and frustrated when he could see that the above said defect of the tiles were increasing day by day by spreading mud color in many shapes in several  pieces of tiles and now almost all tiles have got affected the defect and the floor of the house is seen in a dirty condition etc. The allegation that the first look itself and the visitors of the house include the clients of the complainant and his wife seen the floor ugly and pathetic are denied by the opposite parties.

7.         The opposite parties denied the allegations that when the defect of the tiles was noticed by the complainant he immediately contacted the third opposite party and their sales staff visited the house of the complainant and convinced the complaint etc. It is submitted when the third opposite party representative visited the premises he could found there is no such color variation or muddy dot on the tiles. The first opposite party representative also visited the premises on getting the complaint and he also noted there is no such color variation. The opposite party submitted the complainant / workers had to follow the instructions for laying the tiles stipulated on the carton before the same was paved. As per the instructions the tiles have to be paved first without fixing with grout or gum in order to understand whether there is no any difference in design or color. The complainant side did not follow the same.

8.         The opposite party denied the allegation that the lockdown restrictions had started again and visit by technical team did not take place and as there was no further move by first opposite party, the complainant had to contact the third opiate party frequently etc. In fact the first opposite party had quickly responded to the complainant when the matter was came up and deputed its representatives to the premises. On verification it was found there was no such complaint but there was negligence from the side of laborers who paved the tiles and they used inferior quality of raw materials to lay the same. It is also submitted the complainant used a chemical liquid to wash the floor after the paving work was over. Hence if there was any muddy dot as stated in the complaint it might have occurred due to such chemical wash. It is submitted there is no deficiency in service or manufacturing defect or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties further denied the allegation that during the month of November 2021 one Mr. Surya, a technician attached to opposite party No.1 had visited the house along with one Shahad of third opposite party and prima facie convinced and admitted there are some technical defect for the tiles etc.  The opposite party submitted that any of the representative of the company had not admitted the complaint as a manufacturing defect. The opposite parties further denied the allegation that the first opposite party had offered to pay a nominal amount of Rs. 10-15 per square feet to the complainant as compensation treating the tiles are of second and third quality product. The opposite party submitted they have no intention to cheat anybody as alleged in the complaint because the first opposite party has been manufacturing and distributing different varieties of tile items with innovative technologies for the last 45 years by keeping its goodwill, morals and values.

9.         The opposite parties submitted the calculation made by the complainant is totally imaginary and baseless and hence the averment that the complainant has to spend a minimum of Rs. 6, 00,000/- to rectify the complaint by demolishing and replacing all the existing tiles with new one. The opposite parties submitted the compensation claimed by the complainant is highly excessive and therefore the opposite parties are not at all liable to pay any such amount. The prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite parties.

10.       The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents of the complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2.  Ext. A1 is copy of estimate.  Ext.A2 is cost estimate issued by Abdul Razak. C, engineer- A, C-Portals engineering solutions, by pass road, Kondotty. No documents produced by the opposite parties. The commissioner’s report marked as Ext. C1.

11.       Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. Both side filed notes of argument. The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable and hit by the provision of limitation?
2. Whether the product was with manufacturing defect?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
4. Relief and cost?

Point No.1

12.       The opposite parties contended that the complaint is time barred one since the product was purchased from the opposite party on 18/01/2020 and so the complaint is barred by limitation since it is filed only on 01/12/2022. On the other side the complainant submitted that the cause of action do not arise from the date of purchase itself but when the defect was noted then only starts the limitation period. According to the complainant the cause of action arise in this case when the representative of the first opposite party Mr. Fasal finally informed that they are not ready to solve complaint as demanded on 22/08/2022. Moreover the complainant submitted the guideline issued by the Hon’ble supreme court of India dated 10/01/2022 on extension of limitation considering the covid pandemic situation. Hence the commission finds the complaint is maintainable and stands filed within the time limit as per the guideline of Hon’ble apex court.

Point No.2

13.      The grievance of the complainant is that soon after the tiles were paved on floor it got some muddy line and black spots on the tiles and the same gradually increased and later almost all tiles have got affected. The same was informed to the opposite parties and it was inspected by the responsible persons of the opposite parties and there was assurance to redress his grievance. But finally the first opposite party informed that they are  not prepared to redress the grievance but prepared to pay 10-15 rupees per square feet  to the complainant  considering  the tiles are of second and third quality products and the same being not acceptable for the complainant filed this complaint.

14.      The opposite party submitted that though the representative visited the site no defect was noted as alleged by the complainant. According to them the defect was due to poor workmanship and use of chemical liquid to wash on the floor. More over the workers / complainant failed to follow the instructions laying the tiles stipulated on the carton before the same was laid. The opposite parties further submitted that the tile was paved over the existing red oxide work and so there is no manufacturing defect to the product.

15.       The contention of the opposite party is that the representative of the opposite parties inspected the site and found no defect as alleged in the complaint. But the complainant took out Advocate Commissioner to examine the defective product and thereby the advocate commissioner inspected the spot and filed Ext. C1 report. The commissioner reported that there is defect to the tiles as alleged by the complainant. He reported that there were formed brown muddy line though it besides some black spots on most of the tiles and it was clearly visible through naked eye. But it cannot identify clearly trough photographs. So the commissioner categorically stated that the allegations of the complainant is visible at the spot. It is admitted that the advocate commissioner is not an expert in the matter but he is competent to report an apparent defect through the inspection. On the other hand the opposite parties totally denied the presence of defect alleged by the complainant. So there is no reason to accept the contention of opposite parties that there is no defect to the product as alleged by the complainant. The complainant submitted that if there is no as such defect of manufacturing one the opposite parties are liable to establish the product is without any manufacturing defect. But the opposite parties herein did not take any steps but just denied the entire averments of the complainant. It is also relevant that the representatives of the opposite parties inspected the spot but they denied the allegation of the complainant. So the commission finds that the product has got manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and as per Ext C1. The allegations of the opposite party that the complainant used chemical liquid and unskilled labors are not established by the opposite parties.

Point No.3 &4

16.       The commission finds that there is defect to the tiles purchased by the complainant from the third opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the first opposite party. The complainant contacted the opposite parties immediately on finding defect to the product and the opposite parties though visited the site did not consider the grievance of the complainant and so the commission finds that the act of opposite parties amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

17.       The complainant prayed an amount of Rs.6, 00,000/- rupees with interest to the complainant towards the expenses for re paving of new tiles on the floor of the house of the complainant after removing the defective tiles and incidental expenses. The complainant prayed further amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and trauma caused to the complainant by selling defective product and dragging the complainant inordinately and cost of the proceedings. The opposite party opposed the claim of the complainant since it is not supported by any authority and it is made without any basis. Moreover it is submitted that now a days the business is going through very difficult situation due to various reasons and the opposite parties herein are striving for its existence.

18.       The complainant submitted that the defects of the tiles had caused for complainant and his family high degree of mental agony and trauma and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. It is the further  submitted that complainant had to astonish  and frustrated when it could see that the above defect to the tiles were increasing day by day spreading mud color  in many shapes to several pieces  of tiles and now almost tiles  have got affected by the defects  and the floor of the house of the complainant  is seen now in dirty condition were allow those who visit the house can see the pathetic  and ugly condition of the floor in the first look itself and visitors to the house  include the clients of the complainant and his wife who are practicing lawyer and doctor respectively conducting a regular home consultation in the house . The complainant submitted that they were highly particular and keen on the neatness and the finishing of the house especially that of the floor and also on the quality of tiles applied. It appears the grievance of the complainant is genuine one and the complainatn is entitled appropriate remedial order. The complainant submitted that he is entitled for the following expenses that is the cost for the new tiles and other material like cement, gum etc., labor charge expense, floor demolishing and removal, logistics and transporting , re painting of full areas of house, shifting of residence, cleanings  and re arranging and other incidental expenses might have arisen out of it. The complainant produced a rough estimate ext. A2 to show the expenses expected for the completion of work. Though the opposite parties opposed the prayer in the complainant and contention in Ext.A2, no document is produced by the opposite parties to support their contention. Hence the commission finds the complainant is entitled the amount as stated in ext. A2 towards the repair cost of the tiles work. The complainant prayed amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony inconvenience and unfair Trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The Commission finds the complainant is entitled a reasonable amount as compensation   and we fix the same as 50,000/- rupees. The complainant is also entitled cost of the proceedings as Rs.15, 000/-.

19.       In the light of above fact and circumstances the complaint stands allowed as follows:-

            1) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5, 36,500/- to the complainant towards the replacement of defective tiles and the incidental expenses.

            2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.

            3) The opposite parties are directed pay Rs.15, 000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled 9% interest per annum for the above said entire amount form the date of order to till date of payment

Dated this 8^th day of November, 2024.        

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.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.A1and A2.

Ext.A1: Copy of estimate.

Ext.A2: Cost estimate issued by Abdul Razak. C engineer A bypass road Kondotty.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member