Thrissur District Commission Holds Tile Manufacturer And Its Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Decolourisation And Staining Of Tiles

Background Facts

The complainant purchased IVORY colour Shiv Cera Vitrified Tiles from the 1st opposite party dealer in two installments. On August 8, 2016, he bought 163 pieces for Rs. 26,480 and on August 17, 2016, he bought another 50 pieces for Rs. 8,050 intending to use them for household purposes.

After the tiles were laid they began to show decolourisation and stains. Despite repeated complaints the 1st opposite party only sent a representative to inspect the tiles who confirmed that titles are of poor quality. On October 3, 2016, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to replace the tiles or refund the cost but his request was ignored.

The complainant contended that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practices from the side of opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala, seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund the amount he paid for the tiles along with compensation and costs.

Observation by Commission

Commission noted that expert commissioner appointed by the Commission agrees that tiles were of inferior quality and that it had undergone extensive decolourisation and further certain tiles were also stained.

The Commission found that the first opposite party dealer failed to inform the complainant about the poor quality of the tiles at the time of sale, which deprived the complainant of their basic right. This constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice by the dealer.

The Commission found that the second opposite party manufacturer misrepresented the quality of the tiles. They claimed the tiles were stain-free and suitable for use in high-traffic areas such as hotels and hospitals but the tiles showed significant decolourisation and were of inferior quality.

Additionally, the stipulation on the package that complaints should be made within 10 days was unreasonable as tile quality can only be assessed after laying and use. These actions constitute unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by the second opposite party.

The Commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay the complainant a total of Rs. 34,530 as a refund for the amount paid to purchase the tiles, Rs. 51,200 for labor charges related to the removal and re-laying of new tiles, Rs. 50,000 for the agony, hardship, and financial loss suffered, and Rs. 15,000 as litigation costs with 9% interest.

Case – Thomas Pullani Valappil Versus the Proprietor, Ukkens Build All and Shah Tiles Pvt. Ltd

Citation - CC 630/16

Click Here To Read/Download The Order