Discolouration Of Tiles After Installation, Ernakulam Consumer Forum Awards Rs. 60,000 Compensation To Consumer

Brief Facts:

Mr. George Joseph (“Complainant”), an employee of the Water Authority Department, purchased 310 pieces of Bathroom Wall Tiles and 52 pieces of Bathroom Floor Tiles from M/s Bharath Tiles and Granites (“Dealer”), a dealer of tiles and sanitaryware, on 24th February 2018. The transaction amounted to Rs. 11,105/- including taxes. The wall tiles were manufactured by Glossy Tiles (“Manufacturer”), a ceramic tiles manufacturer.

Before purchasing, the Complainant inquired about the quality and durability of the tiles and received assurances from the dealer’s sales representative. The manufacturer also promised to replace the tiles within a year if any cracks or colour fading occurred.

Upon laying the tiles in his newly constructed house, the Complainant observed that the tiles faded and discoloured within a few days. He informed the dealer, who promised replacement pending an inspection. Despite repeated requests, the replacement was not fulfilled. The dealer also requested photographs of the defects, acknowledged the issue, but still failed to take action. Moreover, it was discovered that the dealer issued a forged bill in another company's name. The manufacturer’s tiles also did not meet quality standards.

This negligent behaviour from both the dealer and the manufacturer caused the complainant physical and mental agony, financial losses, and embarrassment. Resultantly, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (“District Commission”) seeking the replacement of defective tiles, payment of Rs. 13,500 for labour charges, payment of Rs. 15,000 for removing defective tiles, Rs. 50,000 for inconvenience and mental agony, and costs of the proceedings. Notice was served to the dealer and the manufacturer but none appeared in the proceedings, hence both of them were set exparte.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission, after a meticulous analysis of the evidence and contentions, established the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of both the tile manufacturer and the dealer.

The District Commission found that the Complainant's assertion that he was promised superior quality and durability by the sales representative of the second opposite party before purchasing the tiles is further supported by the unchallenged evidence. The subsequent discolouration and fading of the tiles within a short period after installation substantiate the Complainant's claims of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Despite the Complainant's diligence in following up, the dealer’s failure to replace the defective tiles demonstrates a lack of commitment to their promise and amounts to a deficiency in service, the District Commission noted.

Thus, the District Commission deemed it just and fitting to grant the relief sought by the Complainant. Accordingly, it was ordered that the manufacturer and the dealer must jointly refund Rs. 11,105/-, representing the cost of the defective tiles, Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the financial losses, mental agony, and hardships endured and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Case: George Joseph vs Glossy Tiles and anr

Case No.: CC/18/406

Advocate for the Complainant: Adv. Sabu P. Joseph

Advocate for the Respondent: By Managing Director

Click Here To Read/Download Order