By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that he purchased some floor tiles for his house from opposite party No.4.  Opposite party No.4 suggested to go for Naveen tiles and directed the complainant to visit the showroom of Naveen tiles situated at Cherooty Road, Kozhikode.  When the complainant visited the Naveen tile showroom situated at Cherooty road, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were present there and showed various types of floor tiles and persuaded the complainant to go for Naveen tiles manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party, M/s. Murdeshwar Ceramic Ltd. and made the complainant to believe that Naveen tiles are the best available in the market.  As per their advise, complainant purchased 34 boxes of tiles as detailed below:

1. Open Granite 2/2 FST floor (Naveen) – 14 boxes for Rs.18368.00
2. Grey Granite 2/2 FST Floor (Naveen) – 14 boxes for Rs.  16128.00
3. talian Marble 2/2 FST Floor (Naveen) – 06 boxes for Rs.   6912.00

Total            Rs. 41408.00

Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.41408/- to M/s. Kurikkal Tile Centre and took delivery of the goods.

            On laying the tiles about 220 sq.ft. (one room) it was found that the tiles were not even-matched like difference in colour, bending, improper joints etc.  Immediately the complainant brought this fact to the notice of opposite parties 1 and 2, who are the local sales representatives of Naveen tles at Calicut and M/s. Kurikkal Tiles Centre, from whom the tiles were purchased and requested them to change the tiles.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 visited the complainant’s house under construction and examined the tiles.  They also agreed to the complainant that the tiles already laid in one of the rooms measuring 220 sq. ft. had manufacturing defects and agreed to replace the entire batch of tiles.  Complainant requested them to change the entire lot of tiles supplied by them and demanded that they should refund an amount of Rs.2420/- towards the laying charge in one room and Rs.250/- being the lorry charge.  They agreed to give a credit note worth Rs.23040/- only towards the cost of 20 boxes of tiles which are unused and supplied fresh lot of tiles for the same value.  The stock supplied for the 2^nd time also were of bad quality and the complainant requested the 4^th opposite party to give better quality tiles of some other companies and ultimately purchased Johnson Tiles from M/s. Kurikkal Tiles Centre using the credit note for Rs.23,040/-.  In spite of repeated demands, opposite parties have not replaced the Naveen tiles laid in one room nor refunded the amount incurred by the complainant for laying tiles and lorry charges.  Thus the opposite parties have cheated the complainant by supplying bad quality tiles and failed to honour their commitment to replace the entire lot of tiles they supplied.  These amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties directing them to replace the Naveen  tiles worth Rs.18368/- laid in one room measuring 220 sq.ft. with better tiles of reputed Company at their own cost and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also to refund an amount of Rs.2760/- incurred by the complainant for laying the tiles including lorry charges.

            Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version denying the complaint and pleaded mis-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramic Ltd.  This opposite party has not made any false promise and the selection of tiles was made by as the complainant himself.  As per the complainant 1^st opposite party inspected the premises and found no defect and if at all any defect, it is due to the inefficiency of the mason who did the job and the action should have carried against the mason.  Since the ceramic tiles are produced by firing clay at high temperature some tiles may have a slight variation.  A mason can easily identify this and return the same and the complainant made this complaint at a belated stage and there are certain conditions in the carton for laying tiles.  On examination by an expert would prove falsity of the case.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            2^nd opposite party filed their version denying the contentions in the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable against him.  He has already resigned the job with Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd.

            3^rd opposite party entered in appearance and filed version denying the allegations.  He further states that since he is an employee of the manufacturing company, no complaint has been filed against him.  Further, he adopt  the contentions of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

            4^th opposite party not appeared  and called absent and set exparte.

            5^th opposite party entered in appearance and filed version.  They admit the purchase of 34 boxes of their product and further admit on receipt of the complaint they inspected the premises and found no defects to the tiles manufactured by opposite party No.5 but found some defects due to the inefficiency of the mason who did the job.  There is no bend to the tiles.  Due to the improper laying joint was not in proper form.  If at all any defects are there, complainant should have initiated legal action against the mason.  The tiles are packed in cartons and each carton carries on it strict warning that the tiles are to be mixed properly before laying.   The ceramics tiles are produced by firing clay at a very high temperature.  Thus some tiles have a slight variation from the other and normally a capable mason returns the tiles with colour difference and some can use for skirting boarder.  Inefficiency of the mason ended the complainant to file this complaint saying that this is manufacturing defects and an experienced mason can check each and every tile before laying and would make necessary replacement if found necessary.   The complaint is in a belated stage of examination by an expert would prove the falsity of the case.  There is no deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A6 were marked.  Commission Reports were marked as C1 and C2.   MO1 and MO2 were marked on the side of the complainant.

            Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext. B1 and B2 were marked.

            Points for consideration:  (1) Whether there is any defects in the goods supplied by the opposite parties?  (2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation and if so, what is the relief and cost?

            The points for consideration is whether there is any defect in the tiles purchased by the complainant.   In order to prove this aspect an Advocate Commission was appointed and the Commissioner filed his report, which is marked as C! and C2. As per the Commissioner’s report, the tiles which paved on the floor have no evenness.  The corners of almost all the tiles are come up to the surface and almost all the tiles are not seen evenly.  5 tiles have slight colour  variation.  There is nothing to disbelieve this fact and opposite parties not filed any objection to the commission report.  The contentions put forward by the manufacturer is that the defects is due to the masonry work.  The complainant has no case that his entire house is with defective tiles.  Only a small portion is with defects like colour variation and unevenness.  So the argument put forward by the 5^th opposite party is unsustainable.  By going through the records, there is no inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint.  So the complainant proves his case successfully.

            Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the cost of defective tiles used by him worth Rs.18368/- as prayed for and also entitled to get a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with a cost of Rs.500/- from the opposite parties.  Comply the order within one month of receiving the copy of this order.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 27^th  day of February 2009.

                                    Sd/-President                                  Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1            Photocopy of Invoice No.6816 dated 15.12.2003 for Rs.41408/-

A2            Photocopy of Invoice No.201 dated 26.12.2003 for Rs.23040/-.

A3            Photocopy of letter dated 20.1.2004 from O.P.No.5 to the complainant.

A4            Returned cover addressed to Kurikkal Tile Centre.

A5            Returned cover addressed to T. Sanjay, 2^nd opposite party.

A6        Photos (4 Nos.) showing improper joining and colour difference of tiles pave in    

            the complainant’s house.

Documents exhibited for the opposite parties:

B1            Brochure of Naveen tiles.

B2            Brochure of Johnson tiles.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1     Gheevarghese Paul, S/o. Late K. Mathew Paul, Bethshino, 2/707, D,

            Udayamangalam Lane, Karaparamba, Calicut-673010.

Witness examined for the Opposite parties:

RW1     Binu Joseph, S/o. M.C. Joseph, 1831, East Hill Apartments, East Hill, Calicut.

C1            Commission Report submitted by Preetha.K.K., Advocate.