Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/506/2022

Pankaj Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tile Ghar Jind Wale (M/s Rattan Lal & Sons, Marble Market) - Opp.Party(s)

Tejwinder Singh Gill

25 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/506/2022
Date of Institution	:	11.5.2022
Date of Decision	:	25/10/2023

 

Pankaj Sharma son of Shri Ramesh Chand r/o village Ratt, Distrtict Bilaspur (HP) presently residing at flat No.107, Motias Royal Fame, Sector 117, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Tile Ghar Jind Wale (M/s Rattan Lal & Sons, Marble Market), Sarangpur, U.T, Chandigarh through its proprietor/Director/authorized signatory.
2. Lotto Tiles, RV89+2GC, Lalpar, Ring Road, Morbi, Gujarat-363641 through its Managing Director/Manager/Partner/authorized signatory.

2^nd address:

Lotto Tiles Morbi, Sartanpur Road, Sartanpur, Morbi-2 Gujarat 363641.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Tejwinder Singh Gill, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Sourabh, Advocate for OP No.2 as proxy for Sh. Rajeev Duggal, Advocate for OP No.1 alongwith Sh. Shubham proprietor of OP No.1.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Succinctly put, the complainant in the month of July-August 2021 for renovation of his house purchased some tiles of different types from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for Rs.1,31,690/- and issued bill of Rs.87,025/-. It is alleged that in February 2022, the titles  having design No. 13 which were purchased @ Rs.195/- per box  worth Rs.66,690/- started to fall from the wall of the house. The complainant approached the OPs  and complained about the same. Initially the OP No.1 gave assurance to inspect the site but later it started giving lame excuses.  The complainant also incurred Rs.10,000/- as transport charges. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the tiles were not fixed by skilled labour/masons   as per guidelines mentioned on the box of tiles. The tiles were fixed with a sub-standard material. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the tiles as the complainant has not annexed any expert report showing that the tiles have fallen due to defect in the tiles. Even the complainant has not annexed any bills qua the material used for affixing of the tiles.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply took similar stand as has been taken by the OP No.1  stating that the tiles were not fixed by skilled labour/masons   as per guidelines mentioned on the box of tiles. The tiles were fixed with a sub-standard material. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the tiles as the complainant has not annexed any expert report showing that the tiles have fallen due to defect in the tiles. Even the complainant has not annexed any bills qua the material used for affixing of the tiles. Denying all other allegations in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the tiles purchased from OPs started falling and breaking after its fixation at his home.
8. On perusal of the bills Annexure C-2 it is very clear that the tiles as fixed on the wall have been purchased from the OPs. On perusal of photographs Annexure C-4 (colly) it is also very clear that the tiles have fallen from the walls after fixation.
9. Though the stand of the OPs is that there could be multiplicity of reasons of falling of tiles but we are not convinced with the explanation given by the OPs as the complainant has bought the tiles for the beautification of his house and for his comfort but not for inviting any nuisance.
10. There is likelyhood that the fallen tiles were suffering from some defects as many tiles as bought from the OPs have not fallen, which has caused lot of harassment to the complainant. Thus by supplying part defective tiles the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the cost of fallen tiles needs to be refunded by the Ops. During arguments it was brought to notice of this Commission that around  one third of the tiles have fallen, so the proportionate amount is required to be refunded by the OPs, which comes to Rs.22,230/-.   
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.22,230/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A.from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.

 

2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
25/10/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member