CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st  day of July, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                     Date  of filing : 03/06/2014

CC /75/2014

Indu.V,

D/o.Gopalakrishnan,

Prasanna Vihar, Kanjiramkunnam,                                      :        Complainant

Near Erattayal, Kodumbu P.O,

Palakkad- 678 551.

(Party in person)    

                                                          Vs

1  The Proprietor,

    M/s.KAV Shaik Rowther,

    Big Bazar, Market Road,                                        :        Opposite parties

    Palakkad-678 014.

   (Set Exparte)

2. The Regional Manager,

    RAK Ceramics India Pvt.Ltd,

    288, MR Arcade, 1^st Floor,

    Above AXIS Bank, Pathadipalam,

    South Kalamassery, Kochi-682033.

3. The Director,

    RAK Ceramics India Pvt.Ltd,

    Corporate Office, 325, Deerajheritage,

    3^rd Floor, Junction of Milan Sub Way,

    S.V.Road, Santacruz (w),

    Mumbai-400054

    (O.P 2 & 3 By Adv.Youseph.M)

O R D E R

By Smt. Shiny.P.R, President,

Brief facts of the complaint

Complainant has purchased 190 pieces (1500Sqft.) RAK 598  X 1198 Nanopix Smoke White Crystal Lapato Premium quality vitrified tiles from 1^st opposite party on 26/12/2013 for Rs.203620/-.  After laid down the tiles with skilled labors, complainant noticed that some staining problem on tiles.  White color tile became yellow color.  The same has been informed to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Then the representative of 2^nd opposite party Mr.Sudhish visited the house on 27/02/2014.  Complainant faced more difficulty to wipe out  the dust, daily.   In spite of the repeated request opposite parties had not taken any steps to solve the problem.  On 22/03/2014 complainant sent a  registered letter to the opposite parties.  On 30/03/2014 Mr.Sheri, Mr.Sudhish and their technical team visited the house of complainant and tried to remove the stain through applying various chemicals. But they failed to remove the stain. Complainant submitted that poor quality tiles were supplied by opposite parties for the newly constructed house of the complainant. This act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It caused severe mental agony and huge financial loss to the complainant. Complainant further submitted that he has taken a home loan from SBI for construction of the house with interest @ 10.25%.    Hence the complaint.  Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay a total claim of Rs.11,48,620/-to the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and was issued notice to all opposite parties.  After accepting the notice 1^st opposite party did not appear before the forum.  Hence set exparte.  2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version contending the following. 

There is no privity of contract between 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties with complainant.  They were not aware of the stock purchased by the complainant from 1^st opposite party.  It is true that officials of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party have received complaint about the tiles belonged to the company were not in good quality as promised.  After receiving the complaint officials visited the site of the complainant on 31/03/2014 and found that tiles supplied to the complainant were of International standards and no manufacturing defects.  Complainant has not followed the instructions prescribed in the carton of the tiles before laying the tiles.  2^nd and 3^rd Opposite party also submitted  that opposite parties have liability to replace all defective tiles if any before fixing of tiles.  No claim of any nature will be entertain once the tiles are laid.  Opposite parties contended that the grout fixed between the tiles was not of fine quality and workmanship was poor.  There is no manufacturing defect of tiles.  Even after receipt of complaint, 2^nd and 3rd Opposite parties deputed officials to resolve the complaint without any delay and inspected the tiles and found no damage or discoloration.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite party 2 and 3.  Hence complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from these opposite parties.  Complaint is to be dismissed with cost of all these opposite parties. 

Expert commissioner was appointed and he filed report stating that there were noticeable stains in the flooring of the building and that may be due to poor quality of tiles.  He also reported that workmanship was good.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 filed objection to commission report stating that report is totally arbitrary and baseless.

Complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 filed their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1-A4  marked from the side of the complainant.  1^st opposite party remained exparte. No documentary and oral evidence was adduced by opposite party 2 and 3.  Commission report was marked as Ext.C1,  Complainant was cross examined as PW1.

The following issues are to be considered.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the

     part of the opposite parties?

          2.  If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

Both parties heard.   

           We have perused the documents on record.  Ext.A1 shows the purchase of RAK 598 X 1198 Nanopix Smoke White Crystal  90044 for Rs.203620/- from 1^st opposite party  on 26/12/2013.  From this document we realized that the manufacturer of tiles is RAK i.e. 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A2 series shows that complainant sent several e-mails to the opposite parties for curing the defects of tiles.   The tiles had staining problem within 2-3 months of its purchase. This itself shows tiles have some manufacturing defects.   It caused severe mental agony and huge financial loss to the complainant.  Opposite party 2 and 3 contended in their version that they have no liability to replace the tiles after laying down of it.  This contention cannot be taken in to consideration because nobody would realize the tiles are of bad quality before laying tiles.  In this case, on the first appearance the tiles had no defect.  Complainant realized the fact that the tiles were of poor quality only after laying the tiles.  Immediately after noticing these defects complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties on several times. But they did not cure the defects or replace the tiles or refund the cost of tiles to the complainant.  Commissioner reported that there were noticeable change in colour . There was stain in most of the parts of the flooring which are exposed to day to day use. A yellowish shade was clearly visible. The workmanship of tiles laying will not produce such defects. The tile laying was seemed to be good in terms of workmanship.     Eventhough opposite party 2 and 3 filed objection to commission report, they had not taken any steps to examine commissioner or to set aside the commission report.  No documentary or oral evidence is adduced by opposite parties to prove their case. In the above circumstances we are of the view that by selling inferior quality tiles to the complainant  opposite parties committed unfair trade practice.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to refund the cost of tiles and expenses incurred for laying down tiles along with compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant. 

 In the result complaint is partly allowed.  Opposite parties are directed to

1. Refund Rs.2,03,620/- towards cost of tiles.

2. Pay Rs.50,000/- being the expenses incurred for laying down tiles.

3.  Pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony suffered and

4. Pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

The aforesaid amount shall be paid  within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of July, 2015.

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                   Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                                 Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Invoice of 1^st opposite party dtd.26/12/2013 Rs.203620/-(Original)

Ext.A2 series- Email Correspondences

Ext.A3 series – Copy of registered letter dtd. 22/03/2014 and acknowledgment (photocopy)

Ext.A4-Picture of tiles

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1-Indu.V 

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.5000/- as cost.