By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- 

-2-

The complainant purchased floor tiles from the first opposite party on 30.12.2016 and the first opposite party brought the tiles to the house of the complainant. When the complainant paved half of the tiles, he saw some differences to the tiles. So, he contacted the first opposite party. They directed to complete the work.  So, the complainant completed the paving work and saw only six tiles. Other tiles are different in design. Those tiles are substandard.  When he contacted the first opposite party, they came, took photos and assured to clear the defects. But they have not cleared the defects. The complainant is a coolie worker. Therefore, he filed this complaint to get Rs. 1 lakh to replace the whole tiles.

3.  Originally, the complainant made the first opposite party alone as opposite party. Subsequently on contention from first opposite party, he impleaded the second opposite party. Both first and second opposite parties filed their versions separately.  Since they took more or less similar contentions, for the sake of convenience, I have to narrate their contentions together in brief as follows:-

-3-

They admitted that the complainant purchased floor tiles from first opposite party on 30.12.2016.  But they denied that they brought the tiles to the house of the complainant and when he paved the tiles, he saw differences in those tiles. They denied that the complainant contacted the first opposite party and that as per their direction, he completed the work and even then, he saw design difference in most of the tiles.  He had not followed the instruction given by the company. Before paving the tiles, he ought to have applied the procedure        ‘line order‘.  The complainant had not applied the procedure ‘line order’. The tiles had been paved by inexperienced masons. The second opposite party is a highly reputed company and they are manufacturing best high quality tiles only.  They used to check the quality of the tiles before sale. Therefore they are not liable to give anything to the complainant. So the complaint is to be dismissed with their cost.

4.    On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service   

    from the part of opposite parties. If so, whether the complainant is  

    entitled to get  anything as claimed?

2.  Reliefs and Cost.                                           

-4-

5.  The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1 to OPW3, CW1 and Ext. A1, C1 and C2.  Heard both sides.

6. Point No.1:-  The complainant’s case is that he purchased tiles from the first opposite party on 30.12.2016 and he found design difference in most of the tiles when he paved those. According to him, most of the tiles are sub standard.  So his request is that the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.1 lakh to him to remove the paved tiles in order to pave new tiles.  The opposite parties denied that the tiles are substandard and there is design difference in those tiles.  According to them, the complainant engaged inexperienced masons to pave the tiles and before paving, he had not applied the procedure ‘line order ‘. So, they took a stand that they are not liable for anything.

7. The Complainant has given evidence as PW1 to prove his case.  The Manager of the first opposite party, the present Area Manager and the previous  Area Manager of the second opposite party were examined as OPW1 to OPW3 to disprove the case of the complainant.  The opposite parties have no dispute that the complainant purchased the tiles from first opposite party on 30.12.2016.  Ext.A1 is the Bill.  The only dispute here is with regard to quality and design of the

-5-

tiles.  As I already stated, Complainant’s specific case is that except in 6 tiles, he saw design difference in the tiles which according to him are substandard.  The complainant has taken an expert Commission and the Commissioner was examined as CW1. His reports are marked as Ext.C1 and C2.  The evidence of CW1, Ext.C1 and C2 would go to show that CW1 saw only six tiles which are having different in designs. So even though the case of the complainant in the complaint is that all the tiles except 6 are having design difference, the expert is not supported the case of the Complainant narrated in the complaint.  But it is to be noted that when the complainant was examined as PW1, he changed his case in order to get support from the expert.  When the Complainant was examined as PW1, he deposed that only six tiles are having difference in design. Therefore it can be seen here that the complainant changed his case before this Forum in order to make similarity to the evidence of expert.   Therefore he deviated from his case narrated in the complaint.  Even then, he wants to get Rs.1 lakh from opposite parties to replace paved tiles.  But as I already stated that the complainant has no consistent case. He originally came with an allegation that most of the tiles are not having similarity in designs. But, he changed his case at the time of evidence in order to give similarity to the evidence given by expert. 

-6-

Therefore the case of the Complainant cannot be accepted as genuine. Moreover the specific stand taken by the opposite parties is that the Complainant had not followed the instructions given by the company. According to them, the tiles had been paved by inexperienced masons and before paving the tiles, they had not applied the procedure ‘line order’ and it is the reason for the design difference. But the Complainant has not examined any one of the masons to prove that they paved the tiles following the instructions given by the company. Here, except the oral evidence of PW1, there is no evidence to prove that the tiles are sub standard. CW1, expert has not reported that the tiles are sub standard. Therefore, we found that here absolutely there is no materials to come into a conclusion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from opposite parties.

8. Point No.2:- Since I found Point No.1 against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without cost.

-7-

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of January 2020.

Date of Filing: 21.03.2017.

                                                                                  PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              Gopalan.                               Agriculturist.

CW1.              Prajitha. P. S.                       Assistant Engineer (In Charge),

PWD Buildings Section, Sulthan Bathery.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Thulasidas. P. G.                 Manager, TP Associates.

OPW2.          Vinu. R.                                 AM, kajaria Ceramics Limited.

OPW3.          Jithesh. K. M.                       Marketing.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Retail Invoice.                                                          Dt:30.12.2016.

C1.                  Commission Report.                                              Dt:05.07.2017.

-8-

C2.                  Commission Report.                                              Dt:25.11.2017.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

                        Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                          Sd/-

     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

                                                                         CDRF, WAYANAD.