By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get cost and compensation due to the supply of low quality material to the complainant.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased End Merban Manial Ac 41292*192 7P 161 Nos & End Wenge Ac3 1292* 192-8p & End Jakartha Ac3 1292-192-SP and paid Rs.49,034.16/- Rs.22,436.37/- and Rs.40,795.20/- respectively for laying on the floor of his resort named Juggus Island Resort, which is for his sole livelihood. The Complainant was impressed by the reputation of Opposite Party No.2 enquired with Opposite Party No. I about the product. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that product is of best quality and it is having 15 to 20 years of Guarantee according to its grade i.e. AC3 & AC4. In order to show the same leaf let published by Opposite party. No.2. is shown to complainant. After lying of the above said tiles i.e. Wooden in appearance, started appearance of bubbles on its top and caused damages to it and certain floor tiles were eaten by white ants also. The product is of substandard quality and having manufacturing defect and that is the reason for causing damage and it has become un-useful. Approximately an area of 850 square feet the said tiles were laid. Due to bubbles and due to white ants attack the appearance of bed room of the resort has became unclean and certain guests left the resort seeing this. Due to the manufacturing defect and damage to tiles the complainant sustained huge loss and hardships. Now it is evident that all floor tiles purchased and laid by the complainant is to be removed and further laying of another type of tiles has become necessary. The matter was intimated to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and a person named Daniel, visited the resort and found the damages. He assured that the grievance of the complainant will be redressed soon. But till date no positive action was taken by the opposite parties. On behalf of complainant, complainant's husband's brother complained the matter to Opposite Party No.1. On I4.10.2009 and Opposite party No.1 replied that they took adequate steps to redress the grievance through Opposite Party No.2 and furnished a copy of letter dated 01-01-2010 which is given to opposite party No.2 even today the defects were not cured by the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties are unfair trade practice and selling a product of manufacturing defect is a deficiency service. Being floor a tiles it is intended for use of life long period.
3. Now entire tiles has to be removed and new tiles to be laid down, for that complainant has to spent considerable sum. Complainant had paid Rs.1,12,265.73/- towards the purchase of said tiles and the men of Opposite parties No. I and 2 laid it. Now it has to be removed and complainant has to spend Rs.12/- per square feet to lay the new tiles as laying charges. Tiles were laid by the men employed by the opposite parties as instructed by opposite parties. The cause of action aroused on 07.06.2008 on the date of purchase of tiles and on 14.10.2009 when the damage was complained to opposite party No.1 and on 01.01.2010 when the opposite party No.1 complained to opposite party No.2 and there after within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Forum. Hence filed this complaint.
4. On receipt of complaint, notices were served to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared and filed version. Opposite party No.1 filed version stating that Except those that are expressly admitted hereunder the opposite party denies all the allegations and claims contained in the above complaint. The complainant is not entitled to claim or to get any of the reliefs seen claimed therein. The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on the true facts and circumstances of the matter, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no defect in goods or deficiency in service as far as this opposite party is concerned. The complainant has not approached this Honorable Forum with clean hands. She has suppressed the true, correct and material facts and has set out untrue, untenable, unsustainable and misleading allegations and claims which as well disentitles the complainant from claiming or getting any relief under the Act. From the allegations and claims seen made in the complaint itself, it is evident that the complainant has not complied with the specific instructions for fixing the tiles and conspicuously printed on the carton/box of the tiles and in the pamphlets and brochures supplied and made available with the product. In the fairness of things the complainant ought to have produced the carton/box of the tiles and the pamphlets and brochures before this Honorable Forum, but instead she has willfully suppressed the same. As per the terms and conditions of the sale of the tiles, especially those regarding fixing the tiles, the above complaint is not maintainable. Even going by the allegations contained in the complaint the purchase of the tiles is for the purpose of laying in the resort being commercially run by the complainant and therefore the same is for commercial purpose, and as such the above complaint is not maintainable and has to be dismissed on that ground as well. The above complaint is also bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The manufacturers of the tiles are not impleaded as a party in the proceeding. As is specifically declared in the Instructions contained in the box/carton of the tiles, certain amount of shade variations is inherent in all ceramic products, and hence before fixing the tiles they will have to be laid out in the desired pattern to make sure that they give acceptable blend
of colour and also it has to be made sure that the tiles are acceptable to the satisfaction of the customer. The company will bear no liability after the tiles are fixed. For fixing the tiles, the instructions have to be followed and the correct proportion, ratio of cement, sand mortar and water has to be used and the final result depends upon good workmanship and supervision as well. It is also made clear that the company does not accept any liability in case of problems arising out of non-adherence to the tile fixing instructions. The laying patterns have also to be followed properly. The sales of the tiles are subject to these specific terms and conditions, fully understanding and agreeing to which the customer purchases the tiles. In the said circumstances it is submitted that the maintainability of the above complaint may be heard as a preliminary issue, before proceeding with the matter any further. Without prejudice to the above contentions this opposite party submits the following regarding the allegations and claims' contained in the complaint. The complainant's husband along with another person had placed orders for tiles after verifying the different brands of tiles of different manufacturers after being fully convinced about the quality and standard of the same. There was no assurance or representation from the part of this opposite parties regarding the tiles as seen contended in paragraph 4 of the complaint. The tiles were duly delivered to the complainant and he had taken delivery of the same without raising any objections. What is been ordered by the complainant is what is supplied by this opposite party. There is absolutely no defect in the tiles supplied by the opposite party. Further the complainant had not taken any steps to establish the alleged defects claimed to be in the tiles purchased by him. The allegations that the complainant was impressed by the reputation of opposite party No.2 enquired with this opposite party about the product, that opposite party No.1 told the complainant that product is of best quality and it is having 15 to 20 years of Guarantee according to its grade ie, AC3 & AC4, that after the laying of tiles it is started appearance of bubbles on it's top and caused damages to It, that certain floor tiles were eaten by white ants also, that the products of substandard quality and having manufacturing defect and that is the reason for causing damages and it has become un-useful, that the said tiles were laid on the floor approximately 850 square feet, that due to bubbles and due to white ant's attack the appearance of the bed room of the resort has become unclean and certain guests left the resort seeing this, that due to the manufacturing defect and damage to tiles the, complainant sustained huge loss and hardships, that now it is evident that all floor tiles purchased and laid by the complainant to be removed and further laying of another type of tiles has become necessary, that the matter was intimated to opposite parties No.1 and 2 and a person named Daniel visited the resort and found damages, that he assured that the grievances of the complainant will be redressed soon, that till date no positive action was taken by the opposite parties etc are not proper, correct or sustainable besides being baseless and ill motivated. The Further allegation that on behalf of the complainant's husband's brother complained the matter with this opposite party, that on 14.10.2009 opposite party No.1 replied that they took steps to redress their grievance through opposite party No.2, that the act of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and selling of manufacturing defective product and deficiency of service after sales service, that being floor tiles it is intended for use of life long period, that now entire to be removed and new tiles to be laid down, for that purpose complainant has to spend considerable sum, that the complainant had paid Rs.1,12,265.73/- towards the purchase of the said tiles and the men of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 laid it, that now it has to be removed and complainant has to spend Rs. 12 per square feet to lay the new tiles as laying charges etc are also not true or correct besides being baseless and erroneous.
5. The allegations that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party and on account of the same the complainant had sustained loss and injury etc are not proper, correct or sustainable. The alleged loss, damage and injury seen narrated therein are not true or correct besides being baseless. No loss, injury or hardship has been caused or occasioned to the complainant on account of the opposite party. The tiles should have been dry laid before fixing, and the instructions followed properly. For the failure on the part of the complainant, the opposite party cannot be held liable or responsible. The claim for damages and compensation is baseless and unsustainable. The reliefs prayed for are not allowable as well. The claim for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,12,265.73/- are not only baseless and unsustainable, but also highly excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate. In any view of the matter, the opposite party is not liable or responsible for the same. The complainant is not entitled to claim or to get, nor is the opposite party liable or responsible for any of the reliefs seen prayed in the complaint. There is no truth or bonafides on the part of the complainant in preferring the above complaint. The same is false, frivolous and vexatious, seen indulged in as an experimental and speculative venture with malafide, avaricious and other ulterior motives and the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs as contemplated in under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. 2nd opposite party filed version is as follows:- Except those that are expressly admitted hereunder this opposite party also denies all the allegations and claims contained in the above complaint. The complainant is not entitled to claim or to get any of the reliefs seen claimed therein. The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on the true facts and circumstances of the matter, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no defect in goods or deficiency in service as far as this opposite party is concerned. The complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the true, correct and material facts and has set out untrue, untenable, unsustainable and misleading allegations and claims, which as well disentitles the complainant from claiming or getting any relief under the Act. From the allegations and claims seen made in the complaint itself, it is evident that the complainant has not complied with the specific instructions for fixing the tiles and conspicuously printed on the carton/box of the tiles and in the pamphlets and brochures supplied and made available with the product. In the fairness of things, the complainant ought to have produced the carton/box of the tiles and the pamphlets and brochures before this Hon'ble Forum, but instead she has willfully suppressed the same. As per the terms and conditions of the sale of the tiles, especially those regarding fixing the tiles, the above complainant is not maintainable. Even going by the allegations contained in the complaint the purchase of the tiles is for the purpose of laying in the resort being commercially run by the complainant and therefore the same is for commercial purpose and as such the above complaint is not maintainable and has to be dismissed on that ground as well. The 2nd opposite party is having world class plants with ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 certification for excellence in quality, environmental and safety standards, and having 50 years experience in India and over 100 years globally through association with Johnson Ceramic International, UK. The R & D centre is run by PhD's and scientists and is recognized by the Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research [DSIR], Govt. of India. All the products of the opposite party are subject to strict quality standards and checks, and no effort is spared to provide high quality world standard tiles to the customers. The tiles which is the subject matter of the above complaint are imported from Germany and the same was specifically insisted upon by Mr. Anoop Palukunnu, who claim to be an NRI having good experience and exposure to the said product while in the United States.
7. Without prejudice to the above contentions this Opposite party submit the following regarding the allegations and claims contained in the complaint. A copy of the directions provided along with the tiles is produced along with this version and it is prayed that the contents of the same may be taken and read as a part of this version. It is mandatory to follow the same, and any violation of it would dis-entitle the customer from claiming any relief regarding the said product. For fixing the tiles, the instructions have to be followed. The final result depends upon good workmanship and supervision as well. The basic rules for laying area 0.02mm (8mill) damp proof membrane must be placed over the full area of all screeded and stone floors. Strips must overlap by atleast 20cm (8") directly under the joints. The Company recommend the use of a sound proofing underlay. The strips should not overlap. With products which have an impact and room sound insulation incorporated, it is not necessary to have an additional insulating underlay. Laminated flooring should always be installed as a floating floor system. Boards must not be fixed to sub floor in any way (nailing, screwing, bonding). Short joints should be staggered by a minimum of 200mm (8"). Always allow for expansion gaps of 8 to 10mm(1/3" to 2/5") between the floor and all walls, units etc. In all doorways, through ways and single rooms larger than 10m (33 feet) in length and/or with additional expansion gaps must be allowed for at these points and covered with an expansion profile. All these are highly necessary to obtain the proper and correct finish. It is also made clear that the company does not accept any liability in case of problems arising out of non-adherence to the tile fixing instructions. The sales of the tiles are subject to these specific terms and conditions, fully understanding and agreeing to which the customer purchases the tiles.
8. Immediately on receiving the complaint, the staff of this opposite party, Mr. Daniel had visited the complainant's resort on 3rd week of September. That time the resort was not inaugurated. The three sides of the resort were surrounded by Banasura Dam. So even in the summer season there are chances of getting moisture through the wind. All the bedrooms of the resort are having open balconies and the balcony doors granite Patti were not fixed properly, and there was water seepage through these doors. The walls of the resort were open laterite and not plastered and because of this a lot of moisture were getting on to the floor. Apart from these, after completion of the work the windows of the rooms were not closed by fixing shutters and it was rainy season, and the rain water was getting into the room and the same was getting absorbed on the floor. All these reasons/observations were agreed by the representative of the complainant and he was fully convinced. When Mr. Daniel had visited the site there were 21 boxes remaining and he assured the representative of the complainant that the materials will be taken back by the dealer and T. P. Tiles Kalpetta had taken back the material, as the said tiles were not intended to be used in such bad conditions. But the representative of the complainant was asking for entire change of the materials, and the staff of this opposite party clearly told him that it is not the mistake of the product or the company and the material cannot be replaced. There is absolutely no defects or deficiency in the tiles. In compliance of the suggestion made by Mr. Daniel the representative of the complainant hanged two-three mercury lamps in each room from the top to get heat on to the wooden floor, and after two days he had called up and said there are some changes in the tiles, and the condition has improved. The representative of the opposite Party No.2 observed that there were no defects in the tiles. The Complainant was satisfied with the inspection and the quick services rendered by this Opposite Party. This being the true facts and circumstances of the matter, all the allegations and claims contained in the complaint are not proper, correct or sustainable besides being baseless and mischievous. The allegations that the complainant was impressed by the reputation of opposite' party No.2 enquired with 1st opposite party about the product, that opposite party No.1 told the complainant that product is of best quality and it is having 15 to 20 years of Guarantee according to its grade ie, AC3 & AC4, that after the laying of tiles bubbles started appearing of on it's top and caused damage to it, that certain floor tiles were eaten by white ants also, that the products are of substandard quality and having manufacturing defect and that is the reason for causing damages and it has become un-useful, that the said tiles were laid on the floor approximately 850 square feet, that due to bubbles and due to white ants attack the appearance of the bed room of the resort has become unclean and certain guests left the resort seeing this, that due to the manufacturing defect and damage to tiles the complainant sustained huge loss and hardships, that now it is evident that all floor tiles purchased and laid by the complainant to be removed and further laying of another type of tiles has become necessary, that the matter was intimated to opposite parties No.1 and 2 and a person named Daniel visited the resort and found damages, that he assured that the grievances of the complainant will be redressed soon, that till date no positive action was taken by the opposite parties etc are not proper, correct or sustainable besides being baseless and ill motivated. The further allegations that on behalf of the complainant, her husband's brother complained the matter with this opposite party, that on 14.10.2009 OP No.1 replied that they took steps to redress their grievance through opposite party No.2, that the act of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and selling product of manufacturing defect and deficiency of after sales service, that being floor tiles it is intended for use of life long period, that now entire to be removed and new tiles to be laid down, for that purpose complainant has to spend considerable sum, that the complainant had paid Rs.1,12,265.73/- towards the purchase of the said tiles and the men of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 laid it, that now it has to be removed and complainant has to spend Rs.12 per square feet to lay the new tiles as laying charges etc are also not true or correct besides being baseless and erroneous.
9. The allegations that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party and on account of the same the complainant had sustained loss and injury etc are not proper, correct or sustainable. The alleged loss, damage and injury seen narrated therein are not true or correct besides being baseless. No loss, injury or hardship has been caused or occasioned to the complainant on account of the opposite party. Before fixing the instructions should have been followed properly. For the failure on the part of the complainant, the opposite party cannot be held liable or responsible. If at all there are any problems as seen alleged in the complaint, without in any way admitting the same, the same could be only on account of the failure and default on the part of the complainant and this opposite party cannot be held liable or responsible for the same. The claim for damages and compensation is baseless and unsustainable. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
10. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 documents are marked. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and they are examined as OPW1 and OPW2 and Ext.B1 is marked and the commissioner is examined as CW1 and Ext.C1 is also marked. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party No.1, which shows a total purchase value of Rs.2,17,997.98/-. Ext.A2 is the letter given by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2 regarding the complainant's complaint. It shows that complainant intimated his grievances to the 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party intimated this facts to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 is the letter given by the complainant to opposite party No.1 to replace the defective tiles with new one at the earliest. Ext.A4 is the brochure supplied by the opposite party No.2 where in it is stated that "Presenting woodenza from Johnson, a range of engineered wood floors and laminated wood floors that adds warmth and character to any room. Sourced by Johnson's international partner in Germany, who is the largest manufacturer and also the oldest business house in Europe. The ambiance suited for British royality is now available in India. So Exquisite that every moment spent on woodenza floor is sheer joy. The variety offered by woodenza opens up numerous design opportunities enabling you to create a floor that reflects your individuality. Moreover the innovative justiclic technology ensures faster installation making life easier. Go ahead indulge yourself in sensual luxury". Ext.B1 is the Installation instructions supplied by opposite party No.2. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner Report which shows that the commissioner inspected the tiles which is paved in the complainant's building and he reported that on inspection it is noticed that the type of the damaged tile is wooden tile from M/s H&R Johnson(German make), which is guaranteed by Manufacturer for 15 years, supplied and laid (stated by complainant and representative of opposite party No.1) by supplier representative approved tile layer, as per the recommendations of the manufacturer(H&R Johnson).The Guarantee of the tiles covers for Colour fast, stain resistant, floor heating, impact resistance, resistance to glowing ashes,non abrasive, resistance to house hold chemicals, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, as per brochure catalogue. Two types of tiles were used in three buildings of the resort in five Guest bedrooms.
Building No.1 Nalukettu house Room size 3.03*6.15m
In Nalukkettu house there are two luxury bed room LAX 1 and LAX 2. In both the bed rooms the make of the wooden tiles are as per item no 17 of the purchase bill 2018 dated 7/06/2008 of T.P Tiles Centre, Kalpetta and the make is END MERBAN MANILA AC4 - 7P. Please note that the tiling is done on the slab above ground floor. The status of the laid tile is as follows:
I) Alignment of joints is not proper and is opened up. 2) Majority of the tiles surface is bulged up and uneven.
Building No.2 Single wooden cottage (room No.1) Room size 3.88*4.98m
The tile used is END WENCE AC3 - 8P. Please note that the tiling is done within the room but on concrete done on the ground floor.
It is noticed that
I) The tile joints are bulged up and uneven
2) The termite attack is seen on the tile on the peripheral wall and on the central area of the bed room
Building No.3 Double wooden cottage
The tiles used were END WENCE AC3 - 8P.
Bed room No.2 Apparently there were no damages seen in the bed room tiling.
Bed room No.3 Size 5.41 *303m
The bulges on the laid tiles were observed.
Conclusion
Building No.1 Nalukkettu house
The supplied tiles which is to be environmentally friendly as per the guarantee of the brochure. The tiles have shown signs of distortion and bulging of surface of tiles and hence is not environmentally friendly and hence against the guarantee conditions.
Building No.2 (Single cottage)
It is noticed that damages of floor tiles of bed room on single cottages resulted due to two reasons as follows
1)The reason for bulging of tiles surface is the same as concluded in building No.1 above.
2) The wooden tiles is showing symptoms of termite attack. It is suspected that anti termite treatment of the building is not done at the construction stage by the owner. The owner to confirm about anti termite application, if applied.
Building No.3 (Double cottage)
Bedroom No.2 was not showing any sign of damages and hence no claims
Bedroom No.3 The reason for bulging of tiles surface is the same as concluded as in building No.1 above.
11. On considering the complaint, versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
12. Point No.1:- The opposite parties are admitted the transactions. First of all we discussed the contention raised by the opposite party that the complainant is not maintainable before the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, that he is not a consumer. The complainant purchased the materials from the opposite party No.1 and the material is supplied by the opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1. The complainant purchased the material after paying the price of the material for his personal needs. Hence he is a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act.
13. The second contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant used the material for his resort which is allegedly using for commercial purpose. It is evidence from the complaint, affidavit and deposition it is proved that the said resort is running for her livelihood and it was not disproved by the opposite parties.
14. The third contention of the opposite parties are that the tiles were laid without following the instructions and guidelines given by the opposite parties ie Ext.B1. But it is not true because opposite party No.1 told to CW1 that the tiles were supplied and laid by the suppliers representative approved tile layer as per the recommendations of the manufacturer( H&R Johnson) at the time of Commissioner's inspection. The complainant deposed that the tiles were laid in the rooms by the workers who were arranged by the opposite parties. It was not denied by the opposite party No.1 in the first version. On cross-examination in this aspect the PW1 stated that question by the opposite party "Who to whom the laying charges given". Answer:- "That was free, that was done by T. P Tiles. No consideration was paid for laying of the tiles". Witness adds " I provided the raw material. It was not disproved by opposite parties". More over it is to be noted that during the visit of the representative of opposite party No.2 ie Mr. Daniel, with the opposite party No.1, the defects was admitted with the opposite party No.2 and stated in his version that " when Mr. Daniel had visited the site, there were 21 boxes remaining and he assured the representative of the complainant that the materials will be taken back by the dealer, and T. P. Tiles, Kalpetta had taken back the material as the said tiles were not intended to be used in such bad conditions". It shows that the representative of opposite party Mr.Daniel found laying defects and manufacturing defects and damages. That is why the representative advised the opposite party No.1 to take back the remaining tiles which were not laid. More over the report of the commissioner clearly stated that "the tiles have shown signs and distortion and bulging of surface of tiles and hence is not environmentally friendly and hence against the guarantee conditions. OPW1 also deposed that "the defects noted in the tile is due the climates". The tile is having 15 years of warranty and environmentally friendly also and he further deposed that " he don't know that Ext.B1 is given along with tile or not and added I don't know that whether the workers are provided by the opposite party No.1 or not". As a main witness from the side of opposite party No.1 the OPW1 must have the knowledge about "whether the opposite party No.1's technician laid the tile or not. Hence we opine that the tiles were laid by the workers of opposite party No.1.
15. On analyzing the above evidences, especially commission Report the Forum of the view that the supply of materials which are not intended to be used in such areas and such climates and not laying the tiles with experts and after convincing the laying defects and damages and manufacturing defects not taken back the remaining part of material and not curing the defects of the laid tiles is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
16. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief and cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to return back Rs.1,12,265/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five) only with 15% interest from the date of complaint and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as laying charges to lay the new tiles and also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) only as compensation and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Thereafter the complainant is entitled for an interest @ 15% per annum for whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of May 2015.
Date of Filing: 18.03.2010.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Anoop. Planter.
CW1. Tom Thomas. Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Building,
Vadakkanchery.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Suresh. C. P Service Engineer-Senior Executive Johnson Tiles,
Kozhikode.
OPW2. Satheesh. Assistant Manager (Sales), H&R Johnson (India) Ltd.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Retail Invoice. dt:07.06.2008.
A2. Letter. dt:01.01.2010.
A3. Copy of Letter. dt:14.10.2009.
A4. Brochure of Tiles.
C1. Commissioner Report.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Installation Instructions supplied with tiles.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
