1. The complaint in short is as follows: -

        The complainant approached 4^th opposite party to water proof the tiles of the newly constructed house. The 4^th opposite party said that the   Zycosil Plus, Zycoprime, the products of 1^st opposite party is suitable for the said purpose and using the same proportionately mixed then there will not be issue of colour fading or fungus.  There is lifelong warranty and also will provide more strength. The 4^th opposite party introduced 2^ndopposite party, the sales executives of the 1^stopposite party for the said purpose.   The complainant approached 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party described about the application of the said products. Thereafter complainant entrusted 2^nd opposite party to lay 10,500 tiles and to waterproof using the Zycosil Plus and Zycoprime.   Accordingly, as per the instruction of 2^ndopposite party, the 3^rd opposite party carried out water proofing to all the tiles of 10,500. The complainant spent Rs. 94,500/- as labour cost for water proofing of 10,500 tiles, at the rate of Rs.9 /-per tile. The complainant also spent Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) for effecting holes on 10,000 tiles for laying over roof. The complainant purchased the products from the 4^th opposite party spending Rs. 46,718/- (Rupees Forty six thousand seven hundred and eighteen only) on 20/3/2017 and 29/4/2017.  The opposite party had assured the quality and warranty of the product lifelong.  The complainant spent Rs. 15/- per tile for laying. The complainant had laid 8500 tiles after water proof.  The complainant spent Rs.  1,27500/- (One lakh twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) towards as labour cost.  The complainant did the work during first week of 2000 May.  All the water proofing work was done by the 3^rd opposite party under the supervision of 2^nd opposite party. The tiles after water proofing were laid at the end of May.  But the first week itself in June rain season commenced and as result the tiles was affected by fungus and also colour fading. All the appearances and finishing of the tiles lost and the complainant informed the same to 1^st opposite party. One technician of the 1^st opposite party came to the complainant and examined the tiles and said that there are some defects for the products and also some defects in water proofing work.  The complainant thereafter repeatedly contacted the opposite parties, but instead of redressing the grievance, prolonged the complaint. Opposite parties so far not removed the defects of the products.  Complainant submits that the defects caused to the products can be inferred from the Email communications betweenthe2^nd opposite party and the company representative.  The complainant even now not able to organise house warming due to this issue. 

2.           The complainant already suffered huge financial loss and also mental agony. It is not possible to do water proofing after laying of tile over roof.  All the tiles are with two channels.  Hence it is possible to do only after bringing tiles to the floor and for that the complainant submit that he has to spend Rs. 3,72,000/-(Rupees Three lakh seventy two thousand only). Complainant content that at the time of laying tiles nearly 1500 tiles has cut and affixed.  So, if it is taken back, it cannot be reused.  The value of the 1500 tile is Rs. 60,000/-(Rupees Sixty thousand only).  The act of the opposite parties amounts unfair trade practice and also there is deficiency in service. Due to the irresponsible deficient service from the side of opposite parties, the complainant suffered huge financial loss and other inconveniences. So, the prayer of the complainant is to direct opposite parties to pay the expenses for rectifying the defects along with compensation and cost altogether Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four  lakh only)

3.       On admission of the complaint issued notice to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice they entered appearance and filed version.  

4.           Opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed version together denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.  The opposite party No.1 and 2 admitted that the complainant purchased products of 1^st and 2^ndopposite parties from the 4^th opposite party.  The product is to be used in a correct proportion for water proofing and then only the correct result will be obtained.  The assurance given about the product regarding fungus resistant is correct. There was  an assurance  regarding the   holes as result of  application of water proof is not correct.  It is admitted that the complainant had contacted 2^nd opposite party for water proofing purpose.  But the remaining statements are not correct   hence denied. 

5.    The 2^nd opposite party had described the qualities of the product to the complainant and a brochure was also given.  But it is submitted that how many tiles are to be done water proof or who will do the work were not communicated to the opposite parties.  The product of the opposite parties is to be used in a correct proportion that one litre Zycosil Plus, two litre Zycoprime, in 20 litre waters. The above mixed component can be used in between 240 Sqft to 400Sqft.  It is also advised to watch the extend of absorbing of mixture by the tile and there is chance to absorb suddenly on application of chemicals in certain occasions and so it is advised to use in a limited area and all that was instructed the complainant and a document brochure was also given to the complainant.  But the complainant used limited materials for the purpose in a large area and so they could not avail the real quality of the product.  The application of the product which is not as prescribed is the reason for the issue. The opposite parties submit that the complainant   used tiles after dipping in the mixture and the result is that both sides of the tiles have to absorb mixture and so   instead of doing water proof of 10500 tiles it will be used for 21,000 tiles to water proofing.  The claim of the complainant that he applied the product and there was no effect is not correct. The submission of the opposite party is that at least 84 litres Zycosil plus and 168 litre Zycoprime plus is required for the complainant’s purpose.  It can be seen that he purchased very small quantity of products.   The opposite party submit that he never supervised or done the work of water proofing of the complainant.  There was no occasion to provide  instructions by 2^nd opposite party to third opposite party.  Opposite party is not aware of the labour cost given by the complainant to the third opposite party. The opposite party denied that the complainant had given Rs 20,000/- for effecting the hole to the tiles. The opposite parties admit that complainant had purchased products worth Rs. 46,718/-(Rupees Forty-six thousand seven hundred and eighteen only) from the 4^th opposite party.  Opposite parties denied the payment of cost of Rs. 1,27,500/-(Rupees One lakh  twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) for laying tiles.  There was no incidence of water proofing work by the 3^rdopposite party in presence of second opposite party.  The opposite parties on receipt of complaint from the complainant inspected the water proofed tiles and convinced the complainant about the defect in water proofing work of the complainant.    The opposite parties tried to avail maximum facilities to the complainant but the demand of the complainant was to provide entire expenses of the complainant. The submission of the opposite parties is that there was no defect to the products and no deficiency in service, but the real cause was  mistake happened during water proofing work.  The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not incurred any loss as stated in the complaint and the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant for the fault of others.  The attempt of the complainant is to mislead the Commission and to obtain an order from the Commission accordingly. 

6.     The 3^rd opposite party also filed version denying the entire averments and allegations.   The 3^rd opposite party never did work of complainant as per the instruction of 2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party did the work as per the advice and instructions of the complainant.  Regarding the labour cost that Rs.9/-(Rupees Nine only) per tile, Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) for  effecting holes in the tile  are not correct but manipulated and so denied.  3^rd opposite party was given only daily wages.  The opposite party is not aware of the cost of the tiles. Opposite party submit that he has not received Rs. 127,500/- (Rupees One lakh twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) as labour cost.  The submission of the 3^rd opposite party is that he has been made party in the complaint only because he painted the tiles of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the statement of the complainant regarding breaking of tiles during correcting the corners are correct. But it is submitted by the 3^rdopposite party that all the tiles were low quality and he is not aware of the price of the tiles also. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party. The 3^rdopposite party applied the mixture of products issued by the complainant on tiles.  All the mode of work were advised by the complainant himself.  Considering the 3^rd opposite party as an unnecessary party in the proceedings and merely being labour, the prayer of opposite party No.3 is to delete from the proceedings. 

7.     The 4^th opposite party filed version and denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.  It is submitted that the representatives of the 1^st opposite party introducing the product to the public and on the pleasure of the consumers they are purchasing the products. The 4^th opposite party is only seller of the products.   The sales executive is illustrating about the product. The 4^th opposite party has not given any assurance to the complainant and he has done only selling of the article to the complainant.  The submission of the 4^th opposite party is that no deficiency in service from the part of 4^th opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the   4^th opposite party.

8.      The complainant filed affidavit and documents. Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is a copy of E-mail dated 21/07/2017, Ext. A2 is copy of email dated 19/08/2017, Ext. A3 is copy of email dated 20/10/2017,  Ext. A4 series are photographs of disputed residential building to show the defaced tiles,  Ext.A5 is Tax invoice dated 20/03/2017 issued by the 4^th opposite party to the complainant for Rs.39,053/-. Opposite parties did not file any documents, but filed affidavit. Commission report marked as Ext. C1.

9. The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether there is any defect to the product?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
3. Relief and cost.

10.Point No. 1 & 2

          The product involved in this complaint is admittedly a product of 1^stopposite party and it is sold by the 4^th opposite party.  It is also admitted fact that the 2^nd opposite party is the representative of 1^st opposite party the manufacturer of products.  The contention of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is that, the complainant used limited quantity of materials for the water proofing purpose and so the claimed quality could not yield.  The contention is that the product was not used by the complainant as prescribed by the 1^st opposite party and that is the cause for the grievance of the complainant. The allegation of opposite party is that the complainant used tiles after dipping in the mixture of the product and as a result both sides of the tiles absorbed mixture. The result is that instead of applying water proof meant for 10,500 tiles, the complainant used for 21000 tiles. The contention of 1^st and 2^ndopposite party is that for the complainant’s water proof purpose at least 84 litres Zycosil plus and 168 litre zycoprime plus is required.  But the complainant purchased very small quantity of products.    The 2^nd opposite party also contented that he never had occasion to engage 3^rd opposite party and he has not given any sort of instruction to the 3^rd opposite party.

11.      It can be seen that the complainant is not an expert in the application of painting materials.  The painting work requires technical knowledge and also an art mind.  The submission of the complainant is that he approached 4^th opposite party, the seller of paints and from there the information gathered. Complainant approached 2^nd opposite party the representative of 1^st opposite party.   The complainant as per the advice and information   from the 2^nd opposite party decided to purchase 1^st opposite party product for water proof work on his roof tiles.  The contention of the complainant is that the works were carried out at the instruction and advice of 2^nd opposite party.  It can be seen that the disputed work in this complaint cannot be carried out within single day and by a single person.  The submission of the complaint is that the work was carried out by 3^rd opposite party. 

12.      The contention of 3^rd opposite party is that he carried out this work under the instruction and advice of the complainant. He submitted that, he and his workers carried out the work as advised by the complainant and he never had occasion to work under the instruction of 2^nd opposite party.3^rd opposite party also contented that he has not received huge amount as labour cost as claimed by the complainant. The work carried out by opposite party on daily wages. The affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party does not reveal what was the actual wages he received and the number of his works. He has not stated how many workers were there under him.   He has not stated  how the products mixed before water proofing tiles. Statements that  he was not  worked under the 2^nd opposite party and he was only  worked as a daily labour  will not  exonerate  his liability  for the  defective painting work.   It can be seen that the 3^rd opposite party was doing a work which require a reasonable knowledge of painting work and the application of paints.   The contention of the   2^nd opposite party is that the product for water proofing was used in a lesser quantity against advice of product manufacture.  If that is correct the 3^rd opposite party is competent to explain how the products were applied at the time of water proofing.  The 2^nd opposite party   has stated that he has not instructed the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party submit that he was working under the instruction of complainant.  In short both 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are responsible for the defective work. The Commission do not find any merit in the averments of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The parties to the proceedings are bound to file correct version before it, not mere statement. We are of the opinion that the 3^rd opposite party carried out the work under the instruction of 2^nd opposite party and they are responsible for the defective water proofing work of the complainant.  

13.       The 1^st opposite party admitted the product is belongs to them but it is to be applied in accordance with the instructions.  There is no dispute the 2^ndoppositeparty is the representative of the1^st opposite party and the submission of the 2^nd opposite party is that application of products against the instructions caused the defective water proofing work.  It is already found that the work was done by the 3^rd opposite party as per instruction of 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is none other than the representative of 1^st opposite party.  It can be seen that the complainant initially  approached 1^st opposite party and as per his advice  he met  2^nd opposite party  for his  water proofing work of his roof tiles.  Hence the Commission is of the view that opposite parties are liable for the defective water proofing work of the complaints roof tiles.

14.    Point No.3

            In this complaint an advocate Commissioner was deputed for inspecting the disputed work and she filed a report before this Commission on 16/07/2019 which is marked as Ext. C1.   She has reported the house involved in the complaint is well constructed and is built in the concept of dual house, which means the said building consists of two porticoes and two entrances from opposite sides.  Both entrances have separate car porches and courtyards.  The interiors of each room are well furnished and she has commented that a complainant had invested his time and money to give the house a classy look.  More over the house from every side showcase a contemporary style of architectural designs. Therefore, the roof tile on the exterior have to definitely showcase the said style of architecture and she has reported that, on the date of inspection she could see on the roof was fungus affected on almost all the tiles.  The original colour of the tile has been distorted and faded. The outward facing side of all tiles are seen severally affected by the weather condition. She has reported at the time of inspection, the condition of the tile as deteriorated the overall appearances of the building. 

15.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party that , instead of  using  product as per instructions  the complainant  used lesser quantity cannot be as per the instructions of complainant and so it  is baseless.  It can be seen that the complainant was prepared to provide sufficient material to attain the object of the dream house. It can be right the contention of the 2^nd opposite party that the dipping of the tiles in the product caused the defective waterproof work in this complaint.  So it is proper to arrive a conclusion there was no proper and effective advice to the 3^rd opposite party and his workers   while doing the water proofing work over roof tiles.    The complainant purchased the products from the 4^th opposite party as per Ext.A5 series.  Ext. A5 series  shows the value of the product as Rs. 46,718/-(Rupees Forty six thousand seven hundred and eighteen only).  Complainant claims that Rs. 94500/-(Rupees Ninety four thousand  and five hundred only) spend towards labour cost, Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) for effecting holes on tiles and Rs. 1,27,500/-(Rupees One lakh  twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) spend for laying tiles.  Complainant submit that 1500 tiles were cut during laying tiles and he assess the value of the same worth Rs. 60,000/-(Rupees Sixty thousand only).  Hence the total Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lakh only) claimed by the complainant for rectifying the defects and as compensation.  But on perusal of the documents, it can be seen that there is no document except bills for the purchase of product worth Rs. 46,718/-(Rupees Forty six thousand seven hundred and eighteen only).  In the absence of documents, the Commission cannot allow huge amount claimed in the complaint.  It is also not established whether it is necessary to bring tiles to the floor for rectifying the defects caused during water proofing work.   He has claimed Rs. 94500/-(Rupees Ninety four thousand and five hundred only) towards water proofing work. Some more amount will be required to do water proofing work without bringing down the already laid tiles.  The Commission consider Rs.  1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards the labour cost as reasonable amount. The perusal of the commission report appears the construction of the house of the complainant was not a simple work, but with contemporary style of architectural design, But the defective water proofing work over roof tiles caused much grievance to the complainant.  Considering the said fact, we allow Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) on account of defective water proofing work over roof tiles and there by caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled refund of the cost of the products along with cost. 

16.   In the above facts and circumstances we allow the complaint as follows: -

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of products Rs. 46,718/-(Rupees Forty six thousand seven hundred and eighteen only) to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay labour cost of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant as compensation on account of defective water proofing work over roof tiles and thereby caused mental agony and hardships to the complainant. 
4. The opposite parties are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

          The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which   the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of this order till realisation.