DATE OF FILING : 7.10.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.217/2010

Between

Complainant : Shamsudheen K.M.,

Kiliyanal House,

Muthalakkudam P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki District .

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu) And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Ceramic Centre,

Palanickal Shopping Arcade,

Kanjiramattom Junction, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Babichen V. George)

2. Biju Thomas,

Manager,

Regent Granite India Ltd.,

Padivattom P.O.,

N.H. Byepass, Edappally,

Anchumana, Kochi – 24.

(By Advs: Muhammed Abbas M.I., & Lissy M.M.)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased tiles, granites, etc. from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,05,442/-, in the period of August to September 2010, in various dates. Those tiles are named as 'Regent Rivera' and having Rs.41 per square feet. They are laid except in the sit out and kitchen. The materials for laying of the tiles were purchased for an amount of Rs.80,294/-. The balance of Rs.21,729/- was not at all paid by the complainant till date to the 1^st opposite party. The petitioner himself selected the tiles while those were exhibited at the showroom of the opposite party. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for sand, labour charge, cement, etc. for the work. After completing the works at the first floor and while the works of the ground floor were started, it was revealed that there is colour difference in the tiles laid on the first floor. The tiles laid were also not joining and there is a difference in level of the tiles laid in the first floor. The matter was reported to the opposite party and the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant. The 1^st opposite party replaced 200 square feet of the tiles stating that it may be because of difference in batch number and the fixed 14 number of tiles were also changed. But after completing the works of the tiles, it showed colour change in the floor of the complainant's residence. The complainant used skilled labourers for the laying of tiles and only because of the colour difference in tiles, and bends on them, the level difference caused in the flooring of the complainant's house. It made

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

unfair in the floor of the complainant's residence. The 1^st opposite party supplied low quality tiles and so the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Several mediator talks were conducted, but the opposite parties are not ready to compensate the same. The complainant purchased tiles by paying very huge amount in the opinion that they were of first quality, but the opposite parties supplied low quality tiles and this petition is filed for a compensation in the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, the amount quoted by the complainant for the laying of tiles is highly exaggerative. As per the complainant, there is colour difference in the tiles received by the complainant and laid in the complainant's residence. The opposite parties were ready to replace the tiles purchased by him, but the complainant himself accepted these tiles and requested for a reduction in price of tiles. So as per the decision of the complainant, the opposite parties have given a discount of Rs.3/tile and 14 tiles were supplied in free of cost, Rs.4,000/- was given as labour charge to the complainant by the opposite party. So the complainant was completely satisfied and this petition is filed only for avoiding the payment of Rs.21,729/- to the opposite party. The non-joining of the tiles and hight difference of the tiles caused only because, the complainant did the laying work with unskilled labourers. The complainant was free for select and purchase the tiles at the opposite party's showroom. On the purchase, the complainant selected the tiles and after laying the tiles, the complainant himself returned the balance tiles which costs Rs.9,603/-, to the opposite party. The complainant was not ready to accept the promise of the opposite party that they were ready to replace the tiles supplied by the opposite party. All the tiles supplied by the opposite party were vitrified tiles and the range of tiles varies upto Rs.300/-. The 1^st opposite party purchased the tiles from Biju Thomas, Manager, Regent Granito India Ltd, Padivattom P.O., Edappally, Cochi and they are the manufacturer of the tiles. If any defect caused to the tiles, they are also responsible for the same. All the matters were informed to the manufacturer of the tiles and this opposite party is not liable for any compensation or replacement of the tiles. The manufacturer also inspected the residence of the complainant and told their willingness to replace the tiles. But the complainant himself decided to lay the tiles, which were alike on the upstairs and steps of the residence of the complainant. So the petition is not at all sustainable.

3. As per the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, there is no allegation raised by the complainant in the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party. The tiles which are delivered by the 1^st opposite party was carefully examined and inspected by the 1^st opposite party and after that it is purchased by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party. If any defect caused to the tiles which are supplied by the 1^st opposite party and if it is informed to the 2^nd opposite party, the opposite parties are ready to replace the tiles supplied by them. There is no such bend and height difference caused to the tiles supplied by the opposite party. No such information received to the 2^nd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party. If there is any colour difference in the tiles which are laid in the residence of the complainant, that ought to be happened because of the defective selection of the tiles. The 2^nd opposite party is manufacturing several tiles in several designs and colours. The 1^st opposite party purchased the tiles after convincing the colour and quality of the tiles. So no relief has been sought by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party and so this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

5. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts. P1(series) and P2 and Ext.C1 marked on the side of the complainant. There is oral testimony of DW1 and Exts. R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.

6. The POINT :- The complainant produced the bills issued by the opposite party for the purchase of the tiles are marked as Ext.P1(series). Another bill issued by the opposite party for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 is marked as Ext.P2, for the purchase of the tiles. The Commission Report is marked as Ext.C1. The 1^st opposite party filed affidavit and produced evidence as DW1. Several times the complainant purchased the tiles from the opposite party, from 3.8.2010 to 29.9.2010 and Ext.R1 is the computer extract of the purchase details of the complainant. There is a total amount of Rs.1,05,442/- and the complainant has to pay Rs.21,729/- to the opposite party which is the balance amount of the purchase amount of the tiles. DW1 has returned some stock including the tiles purchased by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party and Ext.R2(series) are the copy of letters showing these tiles were received by the 2^nd opposite party. As per Ext.R2(series), on 11.11.2010, 30.10.2010 and 11.11.2010, stocks were returned to the 2^nd opposite party. Ext.R3 is the copy of the statement of account on 15.11.2010 while the stocks were returned to the 2^nd opposite party. That also received by the 2^nd opposite party. DW1 visited the complainant's residence five times in order to talk with him about the dispute and twice the Sales Executive of the 2^nd opposite party was also visited. On cross examination of the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party, DW1 deposed that the tiles are purchased by the 1^st opposite party in sealed containers and the tiles are purchased after satisfaction. Never the 2^nd opposite party made objection in replacing the defective tiles. The defect may be caused if the labourers used for laying the tiles are not the skilled labourers. The tiles are exhibited before the shop of the 1^st opposite party and the tiles supplied to the complainant were of having design in white background. One packet contains 4 pieces and each having a square feet rate of Rs.41/-. The complainant purchased tiles for an amount of Rs.1,05,442/- as per Ext.P1 and he returned the tiles for an amount of Rs.96,000/-. The colour change in tiles was reported to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant after laying the tiles in the first floor and the hall. It was not laid in the hall of the ground floor. There are two places in which the tiles were not joining and one or two tiles are having some defect. Even in the first quality of tiles may have slight variation, that is -1 or +1. 14 tiles were refixed by the opposite party by paying its expense and the balance tiles for Rs.9,600/- were returned by the complainant. Out of the 17 boxes purchased by the complainant, he opened all the boxes, selected the tiles and returned the tiles. Rs.3,600/- was paid by DW1 as labour charge for the defective tiles.

As per the complainant, he purchased the tiles for an amount of Rs.1,05,442/- from the opposite party and Ext.P1(series) bills also produced for the same. Cost of the tile is Rs.41/square feet. The complainant has to pay Rs.21,729/- as balance to the opposite party. After using the tiles it was revealed that there is colour difference in tiles laid in the up-stair and that several tiles are not joining because of height difference. 200 square feet of tiles were replaced by the opposite party while informed the matter and 14 tiles were also replaced by the opposite party which were fixed on the floor. The opposite parties supplied the low quality tiles, so there is a colour difference and non-joining caused in the tiles. Ext.C1 Commission Report also shows that there are level change in the tiles laid in the complainant's residence for about 10 number of tiles. 50 number of tiles laid in the complainant's residence were having slight colour change. As per the opposite party, the complainant purchased the tiles from the opposite party after selecting the tiles for laying, the balance boxes of tiles have returned to the opposite party, it can be seen as per Ext.R1 computer print. The difference in height in the laying of tiles caused because of the careless laying of the

(cont.....4)

- 4 -

unskilled labourers. While there was a colour change, DW1 had visited the complainant's residence, twice with the 2^nd opposite party. They have also replaced 14 number of tiles and labour charge of Rs.3,600/- was paid to the complainant. The defective tiles inclusive of the tiles returned by the complainant were sent to the 2^nd opposite party and Ext.R2 and Ext.R3 show the same.

It is admitted by DW1 that there is slight colour change in the tiles supplied by the opposite party and DW1 himself replaced the tiles while informing the matter to the opposite party and the defective tiles were also returned to the 2^nd opposite party, who are the manufacturer of the tiles. Five times the 1^st opposite party visited the place and arranged the replacement of tiles and there was a reduction given to the price of the tiles. 17 boxes were given for selection of tiles and the complainant selected the tiles for laying and the balance were returned to the 1^st opposite party. It means that while there was defect showed in the tiles supplied by the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party himself visited the spot 5 times and also twice with the 2^nd opposite party and arranged replacement of tiles. The labour charge of Rs.3,600/- was also paid to the complainant and 14 tiles were also replaced, which were already laid. As per the opposite party, the complainant has to pay Rs.21,729/- to the opposite party and in order to avoid the payment, this petition is filed. As per Ext.C1 Commission Report, it is stated that there is slight colour difference in the tiles laid in the complainant's residence.

But we think that if there is a colour difference in the tiles purchased by the complainant, the labourers who are laying the tiles can see the same and they can avoid the laying of the tiles. As per the complainant, they have realised that there is colour change in the tiles after laying the tiles in the 1^st floor, but the colour change of the tiles were not reported by the labourers of the complainant to the complainant. The opposite parties are also ready to replace the tiles. If the colour difference of the tiles were reported by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party, they were ready to replace the tiles, what prevented the complainant to produce the tiles before the opposite party before laying them, if there was any colour change or defect to the tiles. If any defect caused to the tiles, that matter can also be realised by the skilled labourers while laying the tiles and that matter also can inform by the labourers of the complainant to the opposite party before laying the same. The complainant himself admitted that 200 square feet of tiles purchased by the complainant were replaced by the opposite party. As per the Commission Report, it is written that there is slight colour change in the tiles laid and 10 number of tiles are not joining each other. If the tiles were laid by the skilled labourers and if there is any colour change and defect, what prevented the complainant to produce the tiles to the opposite party for replacement. It is also written in the Commission Report that about 50 number of tiles which is of 4 square feet were having colour change. As per the complainant, the cost of the tile is Rs.41/- for one square feet and each tile is of 4 square feet dimension, about 50 number of tiles were having colour change. It is admitted by DW1 himself that there is a difference in colour and these tiles were sent to the 2^nd opposite party for replacement. So the complainant is entitled to get the price of the tiles which are having colour change and it is admitted by the opposite party, it is a gross unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party. The opposite party himself admitted that there is colour change and defect in the tiles and we fix Rs.8,200/- as cost of 50 number of tiles which are having colour change. The labour charge for the laying of tiles can be fixed as Rs.10/square feet. So we fix a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the colour change of the tiles supplied by the opposite party. It is not proper to pay all the cost of the materials for the laying of tiles, by the opposite party. It is the duty of a skilled labourer to verify the change of colour in the tiles before laying the tiles. The complainant is also bound to verify the colour of the tiles before laying in his residence because he had paid a huge amount for purchasing the same after selecting the tiles, from

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

the opposite party. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has to pay Rs.21,729/- as balance amount to the opposite party. So the complainant is entitled to pay only the balance amount to the opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the tiles which were supplied by the 1^st opposite party and it is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party that they are ready to replace the tiles if there is any defect caused to the tiles. As per the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party's Sales Executive and Marketing Manager visited the complainant's residence twice and that matter was not at all challenged by the 2^nd opposite party.

Hence the petition allowed. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the defective tiles and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of June, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Nil

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Sajeeb A.P.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1(series) - Bills issued by the opposite party – 4 Nos.

Ext.P2 - Bill issued by the opposite party for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011.

Ext.C1 - Commission Report dated 8.11.2010.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Computer extract of the opposite party for the purchase made by the complainant

for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011.

Ext.R2 - Copy of the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.R3 - Copy of the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party

dated 15.11.2010.