District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulum (DCDRC): The instant consumer complaint filed by actor P.K. Asokan who alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practices by Opposite Parties owing to the poor workmanship in laying of tiles in his house and misrepresentation of their quality of the tiles used. The Bench of D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandra and Sreevidhia T.N. (Members) taking note of the facts, evidence and report of the Expert Committee, found the Opposite Parties significantly deficient in service. The Commission further found that the Opposite Parties had violated the complainant’s right to be informed, thereby indulging in unfair trade practices and consequently causing immense mental and financial agony to the complainant. Thus, the DCDRC directed the Opposite Parties to pay compensation amounting to Rs 17 Lakhs.
The Commission observed that, “This case exemplifies the profound impact that consumer grievances can have on an individual’s life. The complainant, a well-known cine artist, trusted the assurances of the opposite parties and made a significant investment in his dream home, Punjabi House, only to be met with poor workmanship and exploitation”.
Background: The complainant purchased 2500 sq. ft. (800 x 800 mm) of Dyana white tiles, from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 2,75,000. The tiles were manufactured and imported by the 3rd opposite party. The 1st and 3rd opposite parties assured the complainant that the tiles were of international standard and quality, suitable for in-house use with good finishing. Based on these assurances, the complainant purchased the tiles. The 1st opposite party also recommended the name of 2nd opposite party for laying the tiles, which the complainant agreed to, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- for the service.
However, the complainant discovered that the tiles were not properly adhered, there were gaps and misalignment, which caused inconvenience. The 2nd opposite party denied responsibility, attributing the issues to manufacturing defects and poor quality of the tiles supplied by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. The complainant approached the 1st and 3rd opposite parties for rectification and replacement, however, despite the assurances of rectification given by the Opposite Parties, no action was taken by them.
Aggrieved by the ordeal, the complainant approached the Commission alleging that the Opposite Parties engaged in unfair trade practices by misrepresenting the quality of the tiles given to the complainant. The complainant also alleged poor workmanship and lack of expertise by the 2nd opposite party.
The Opposite Parties rebutted the allegations and stated that the complainant has approached the Commission with unclean hands.
Commission’s Assessment: Perusing the matter, the Commission noted that the instant complaint is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Commission further stated that the Opposite Parties’ failure to provide crucial evidence, such as warranty and test reports on the quality of the tiles even after the dispute was raised to them, fortifies the argument of the Complainant that there is continuing cause of action which should be construed in favour of the consumer.
The Commission took note of the Expert Commissioner’s report in the matter wherein significant damage was found and the Expert Commissioner assessed that the tiles were improperly laid without spacers or adhesives, leading to damage. It was also found that the estimated cost for dismantling and replacing tiles and rectification of other major damages to the house will cost approximately Rs 16,58,641. The Expert Commissioner also found that the materials used were of sound quality and met ISI specifications, however, improper laying techniques caused the damage.
The Commission noted a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Commission further pointed out that the 2nd opposite party demonstrated deficient service due to poor workmanship and lack of expertise, leading to tile de-bonding. The 2nd opposite party failed to show due diligence, good workmanship, or use quality adhesives or cement in laying the tiles. These actions amount to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, which caused the complainant severe mental agony.
The Commission further found that that there was a guarantee to the tiles purchased by the complainant, and the Opposite Parties willfully suppressed the vital documents before the Commission and did not provide any such warranty details to the complainant. This action of the Opposite Parties violated the complainant’s right to be informed as per Chapter ll Section 6(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986. “The Right to be Informed ensures that consumers are provided with all necessary details about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard, and price of goods and services to protect against unfair trade practices. Consumers should seek complete information before making choices to act wisely and responsibly. This consumer right, defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aims to safeguard consumers from high-pressure selling techniques by providing transparency about products and services. Knowing all relevant details, including ingredients and potential side effects, allows consumers to make informed decisions and avoid deceptive practices”.
The Commission stated that the Opposite Parties failed to prove that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. They did not provide any cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate their claims and deliberately withheld evidence. Neither the 1st opposite party nor the 3rd opposite party produced any documents to prove the warranty or the quality of the tiles through the test report which ought to have been provided to the complainant while these tiles were purchased by him. The withholding of these details constitutes unfair trade practices.
The complainant suffered significant hardship and mental agony due to the actions of the Opposite Parties, thereby making him legally entitled to the reliefs requested in the complaint.
The Commission thus held that the 1st and 3rd opposite parties are liable for the unfair trade practices, service deficiency, and failure to rectify the defects despite assurances. They suppressed vital documents before this Commission and did not provide any warranty details to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is liable for poor workmanship and deficiency in service.
The Commission thus observed that, “The frustration and mental agony complainant endured while navigating the labyrinth of broken promises and unfulfilled commitments serve as a stark reminder of the vulnerability of consumers in the face of negligence (…) We are therefore of the opinion that it is our duty to ensure such injustices are curtailed and rectified, restoring faith in the consumer protection framework and affirming that the rights and dignity of ind1viduals must always be upheld”.
[PK Asokan v. Peekay Tiles Centre, CC No. 209/2018, decided on 31-07-2024]
Order by DB Binu, President
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Complainant- Adv.T.J. Lakhmanan and Adv. P.B Jefin
OP 1- Adv. Philip T.Varghese, Adv.Thomas T.Varghese, Adv. Achu Shubha Abraham, Adv. G.Padmakumar, Adv. Litha V.T., Adv.Afsana Ashraf, Adv. Jayasankar K, Adv. Denny Varghese, Adv.Lijo Raju, Adv.Prabha Jose, Adv. Jaisy T.A., Adv. Renji John, Adv. Reni John, Adv.Sruthi Sara Jacob.
OP 2 and 3 by Adv.Denny Varghese