Consumers Have Right To Be Informed About Proper Use, Risks Associated With Products At Time Of Sale: Thrissur District Commission Holds Tile Seller Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased 'Marbomax Vitrified Tiles' from Ideal Agencies (“Seller”) for Rs. 24,600/-. The Seller claimed that the titles were of high standards in terms of quality. However, after the Complainant laid the tiles in his hall and bedroom, their edges started to fade. The Complainant informed the Seller, which then inspected the laid-down tiles. After the admission of the subpar quality of the tiles, the Seller offered a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant did not accept the offer and instead, sent a legal notice to the Seller. However, he did not receive any reply. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (“District Commission”). He contended that the fading of the tiles dented the cosmetic appearance of his home.

In response, the Seller contended that the Complainant failed to file a complaint against the manufacturer of the tiles. Further, other customers who bought tiles from the same batch did not complain about similar issues. The Complainant also failed to report the fading of the tiles when the package was opened. Therefore, the fading could also be attributed to cementing the tiles or using chemicals to clean them. The Seller denied offering any sort of compensation to the Complainant and argued that it bore no liability for the fading of the titles.

Observations of the District Commission:

At the outset, the District Commission perused the report of the expert commissioner, which proved that 30% of the whole area where the tiles were laid, was faded. The report also confirmed that the fading led to a scratched view of the tiles. It was further observed that the quality of the tiles is intrinsically connected to the manufacturing standards. However, the Complainant failed to implead the manufacturer as an opposite party.

The Seller initially raised the contention of misjoinder of parties. However, during the cross-examination, the Seller's power-of-attorney holder (the person who also managed the shop) contended that the tiles did not have a manufacturing or qualitative defect. He also stated that only when there are manufacturing or quality issues, the manufacturer should be impleaded as a party. This admission invalidated the objection regarding non-joinder. The District Commission observed that the manufacturer was merely a proper party and not a necessary one. Thus, it held that the complaint could not be dismissed on this ground. During the cross-examination, the Seller also accepted that its staffer acknowledged the defects with the tiles after conducting an inspection. Even if the Seller blamed the fading of the tiles on chemical use or cementing, it failed to inform the Complainant about the involved risks, at the time of the sale. The District Commission relied on Section 6(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which gives the right to the consumers to be informed about the proper use and quality of the products at the time of the sale.

The District Commission also refuted the contention of the Seller that no other customer reported having such issues. It was held that not every aggrieved customer files a consumer complaint. The District Commission further held that the Complainant was not under any obligation to raise a complaint right after opening the tile packages, as such issues only resurface after laying and prolonged use of the tiles.

Based on the aforementioned observations, the District Commission held the Seller liable for deficiency in service. It directed the Seller to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for legal costs within 30 days of the receipt of the order copy. In case of failure to pay the amount within 30 days, the District Commission held that the Seller would have to bear an interest rate of 5% per annum on the total amount from the date of the order.

Case Title: Geo Johnson vs Proprietor, Ideal Agencies

Case No.: CC 570/10

Advocate for the Complainant: A.D. Benny

Advocate for the Opposite Party: V. Suresh

Click Here To Read/Download The Order