Thrissur District Commission: Tile Seller Liable For Failing To Inform Buyer About Risks Associated With Product Use
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala), comprising Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member), and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member), held that 'Ideal Agencies', a tile seller, was liable for deficiency in service due to its failure to inform the consumer about the proper use and risks associated with the tiles at the time of sale. The Commission emphasized that a retailer has a duty to ensure that consumers are fully informed about the correct usage of products they purchase.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Geo Johnson, purchased ‘Marbomax Vitrified Tiles’ from Ideal Agencies for a sum of Rs. 24,600/- on 31.07.2010, based on the seller’s assurance that the tiles were of superior quality. After laying the tiles in his hall and bedroom, the edges of the tiles began to fade, affecting the overall aesthetic appearance of his home. Upon being informed, the Seller inspected the laid tiles and allegedly admitted the substandard quality, offering a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, which the complainant refused. After issuing a legal notice that elicited no satisfactory response, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Thrissur District Commission, claiming deficiency in service and seeking refund, compensation, and legal costs.
Seller’s Defence
The Seller admitted to the sale but raised preliminary objections, arguing that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer, asserting that no similar complaints had been received from other buyers of the same batch of tiles. It further alleged that the fading could have been caused by the cement or chemicals used by the complainant during installation or cleaning, and denied offering any compensation.
Observations and Findings of the District Commission
The Commission first evaluated the evidence, including the Expert Commissioner’s report (Ext. C1), which conclusively found that approximately 30% of the total laid area exhibited fading and scratches, confirming a significant defect. The Commission noted that the complainant had discharged his initial burden of proving the defect.
Addressing the issue of non-joinder of the manufacturer, the Commission observed that the Seller’s power of attorney holder, during cross-examination, unequivocally stated that the tiles did not suffer from any manufacturing defect or inherent quality issues. It was clarified that a manufacturer is a "proper party" but not a "necessary party" in such a dispute. Therefore, the complaint could not be dismissed merely due to the non-joinder of the manufacturer.
While the complainant’s prayer for a full refund was found unsustainable without establishing a manufacturing defect, the Commission turned its attention to whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of the Seller.
The Commission found that the fading could have been exacerbated by the use of certain cement, clay, or chemicals. However, it was incumbent upon the Seller to have informed the complainant about such risks at the time of sale. Relying on Section 6(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Commission underscored that consumers have the right to be informed about the quality, purity, standard, and other relevant characteristics of goods at the time of purchase.
The Commission emphasized: "A retail shop is not a center meant merely to collect money from the end consumers. The retailer is expected to help consumers make informed decisions and furnish them with sufficient information regarding safe and proper use."
In this case, the Seller failed to advise the complainant on proper installation materials or safe cleaning practices, despite being aware of potential risks associated with the tiles. This omission was held to constitute deficiency in service.
The Commission also rejected the Seller's argument that no other customer had complained, noting that not every aggrieved consumer necessarily initiates legal action. Furthermore, it held that expecting a consumer to notice such fading immediately upon opening the packages was unrealistic, as defects often become apparent only after installation and some use.
Final Directions
Considering the agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the fading of tiles and the Seller’s negligence in providing necessary product information, the District Commission ordered the Seller to:
Pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship.
Pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs.
The Seller was directed to comply with the payment within 30 days from the receipt of the order, failing which the awarded sum would carry interest at 5% per annum from the date of the order till realization. The complaint was thus partly allowed, reinforcing the principle that consumers are entitled to make informed purchasing decisions and that sellers have a duty to aid and protect this right.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Adv. A.D Benny
For the Opposite Party: Adv. V. Suresh Kumar
Cause Title: Geo Johnson V. Proprietor, Ideal Agencies
Case No: CC 570/10
Coram: Shri. C. T. Sabu [President], Shri Ram Mohan R [Member], Smt. Sreeja S. [Member]
[Read/Download order]
