District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South) Holds Dealer Liable For Selling Defective Goods.

The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had purchased the tiles from the OP and the same was delivered in January 2018 in two parts. The tiles were laid at the house of the complainant in March 2018 and the complainant found one of the batches of tiles to be defective in nature. It was alleged that there were bends, corroded veneer and sheer lack of smooth top layer in some of the flooring and these defects were not conspicuous before they were laid. The complainant further alleged that it was not a mere aesthetic issue, but a veritable health hazard making himself and his family susceptible to infection and disease. The complainant has requested the Commission to direct the Opposite Party to either replace the defective tiles or to refund the cost of the tiles, which amounts to 4,18,080/- INR along with material costs of 1,92,960/- INR and to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- INR towards mental agony, inconvenience, etc.

The OP first raised the contention that the complaint is not maintainable as the manufacturer has not been made a party to the proceedings and the complaint deserves to be dismissed for nonjoinder of the necessary parties. The OP alleged that they had specifically sent an email to the complainant, his architect, and the builder that for all the tiles minimum spacer of 2 to 3 mm is required, but the same was not complied with. The OP stated that the corrosion on the tiles might have occurred because the complainant would have used acids while cleaning them. Furthermore, they stated that the materials are to be checked out on the same date of delivery and any complaint after that cannot be entertained as the responsibility of the OP ceases henceforth. The complainant only filed the complaint 8 months after laying of the tiles, and so, the OP stated that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged.

The complainants had relied on the NCDRC judgement in the matter of Blue Chip India v. R. Chandrashekara Patial wherein it was held that there was no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the purchaser and so, the joinder of the manufactures as a party is not necessary. The present bench allowed this contention raised by the complainant. Further reliance was placed on the judgement passed by the apex court in the matter of Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was observed that with regard to impleadment of parties the plaintiff (dominus litus) in a suit, may choose the person against whom he wished to litigate. The complaint had also relied on the judgement of the Kerala Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, in the matter of Cochin Beauty Shop v. Manohar & Ors. where it was observed that conditions such as “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” amounts to unfair trade practice. The bench allowed all the above-mentioned arguments raised by the complainants. The bench opined that a customer who buys goods could be under the impression that even if the goods are defective, he may not be in a position to replace them and thus, the unilateral condition on the invoice cannot be accepted and is not binding on the complainant.

Regarding the liability of the manufacturer, the NCDRC judgement in the matter of M. Subba Rao Prop. M/s Sri Krishna Seeds v. Avula Vekata Reddy was referred to wheren it was held that, ‘the manufacturer would be a proper party, but at the same time the dealer/supplier has supplied and sold the seeds to the complainant, therefore the complaint was maintainable against dealer. Furthermore, if dealer has any grievance, it is open to them to recover the amount ordered from the manufacturer by filing appropriate proceedings, but it cannot be said that the dealer who has sold the seeds, is not liable’. According to the bench, the same logic would apply here, and it is upon the OP (supplier/dealer) to initiate proceedings against the manufacturer if necessary. The bench concluded that the OP had committed deficiency of service and partly allowed the complaint.

Sanjay Pinto & Vidya Pinto for the Complainant

K R Ramesh for the Opposite Party

Case Name: Dr. Anand Gnanaraj v. Floor N Dector

Consumer Complaint No.: 313/2019

ClickHere To Read/Download Order