By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Facts of the case.<br /> Complainant purchased from opposite party No.2 30 packets of Volvo Beige 496 x 496 Simless glazed vitrified tiles manufactured by opposite party No.1. The price paid is Rs.13,958/-. The tiles were selected relying upon the quality of tiles displayed by opposite party No.2. While laying the tiles complainant realised that the tiles supplied in the packets were of substandard quality. Complainant informed the defects to opposite party No.2 who directed him to make a written complaint to opposite party No.1. On the letter written by complainant to opposite party No.1 an officer was deputed to inspect and report about the defects. Thereafter opposite party No.1 has snot responded to complainants grievance. Hence this complaint praying for compensation of Rs.25,000/- as cost for laying new tiles and Rs.5000/- for mental agony and hardships.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 was served. On 13-9-2007 Adv.K. Hamza proposed to appear for opposite party No.1. Later neither vakalath nor version was filed on behalf of opposite party No.1. Version was filed by opposite party No.2 admitting the purchase of tiles. It is stated that on receiving complaint it was intimated to opposite party No.1 who is the manufacturer. That only opposite party No.1 is liable for the supply of defective tiles.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by complainant and opposite party No.2. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked on behalf of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 4. Purchase of tiles and their price is also admitted. Opposite party No.2 admits receiving complaint regarding the quality of tiles. As per the direction of opposite party No.2 complainant made a written complaint to opposite party No.1. An officer named Rajeev was deputed from the Kerala Office of opposite party No.1 to inspect and report the defect of tiles. Thereafter there was no response from opposite party No.1 and hence this complaint has been preferred. Ext.A1 is the order form for supply of tiles. Ext.A2 is the invoice dated, 07-02-06. In Ext.A1 and A2 the price of the alleged tiles is Rs.13,950/-. Ext.A6 is the letter dated, 09-3-06 sent by complainant to opposite party No.1 regarding the defect of tiles. Ext.A8 dated, 14-3-06 is the reply sent by opposite party No.1. In Ext.A8 it is categorically stated that the dealer is not responsible for defect in quality of tiles. Ext.A7 is the letter dated, 19-4-2006 sent by complainant to opposite party No.1 for redressal of his grievance to which there was no reply at all. From the materials on record and documents produced complainant has proved a case in his favour. In complaint and affidavit complainant reiterates that the liability for supplying substandard tiles is that of opposite party No.1 who is the manufacturer. At the time of hearing also complainant clarified that he does not want any relief against opposite party No.2. We find that opposite party No.1 has committed unfair trade practice by supply of substandard goods. Opposite party No.2 is exonerated from liability. Complainant affirms that besides the price of tiles he spent Rs.19,168.60 as cost for laying the tiles. He claims Rs.25,000/- as expenses for laying new tiles. He also claims Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and hardships. We consider that an amount of Rs.25,000/- would serve justice to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party No.1 is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of this litigation. <br /> <br /> Dated this 9th day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A8<br /> Ext.A1 : Order Form for Rs.21,921/- dated, 3-2-2006 by opposite <br /> party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Invoice.10 for Rs.21,921.10 dated, 7-2-2006 by opposite <br /> party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : List of laying charge for Rs.4316/-<br /> Ext.A4 : Courier consignment note dated, 9-3-2006 sent by complainant <br /> to 1st opposite party.<br /> Ext.A5 : Acknowledgement card received from 1st opposite party to <br /> complainant.<br /> Ext.A6 : True copy of the letter dated, 09-3-2006 sent by complainant to<br /> opposite party.<br /> Ext.A7 : Reply letter dated, 19-4-2006 sent by complainant to <br /> 1st opposite party.<br /> Ext.A8 : Registered letter dated, 14-3-2006 sent by opposite party<br /> to complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />