A consumer under the Consumer Protection Act excludes those purchasing for commercial purposes, impacting liability for defects.

1. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 84/2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short). The appellants are aggrieved by the final order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the District Forum allowing the complaint and granting compensation. Both the appellants are held jointly and severally liable for an amount of Rs.1,12,265 with 15% interest from the date of complaint, an amount of Rs.50,000 fixed as the charges for laying new tiles at the resort of the complainant, a further amount of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation and Rs.25,000 as costs of the proceedings. All the amounts are to carry 15% interest.

2. The short facts necessary for our purpose are summarized hereunder. The respondent filed the complaint alleging that she was conducting a resort at Wayanad by name 'Juggus Island Resort', which according to her, was being conducted as her sole means of livelihood. The respondent was impressed by the reputation of the 2nd appellant and had purchased tiles for laying on the floor of her resort. The tiles had wooden finish and had the appearance of wood. She had paid amounts of Rs.49,034.16, Rs.22,436.37 and Rs.40,795.20 respectively for the tiles. The tiles were purchased from the 2nd appellant herein. The respondent was assured that the product was of best quality with 15 to 20 years guarantee since they were of the grade AC3 and AC4. The respondent was persuaded to purchase the tiles on the basis of the leaflet supplied by the 2nd appellant. However, shortly after the tiles were laid bubbles started appearing on its surface and the tiles started getting damaged. Some of the floor tiles were eaten by white ants also. According to the respondent, the product was of substandard quality and was having manufacturing defects.

3. It was alleged in the complaint that an approximate area of 850 sq. ft. had been tiled. As a result of the bubbles and attack of white ants the appearance of the bedrooms of the resort became ugly and many of the guests left the resort because of the bad appearance of the tiles. Consequently the respondent sustained huge losses and hardships. It has therefore become necessary to remove all the tiles fixed earlier and to lay new tiles.

4. The matter was intimated to the appellants and a person named Daniel visited the resort and took note of the damage. He assured that the grievances of the respondent would be redressed soon. But, no action was taken in the matter. The brother of the respondent's husband had contacted the 2nd appellant and had complained to him. The 2nd appellant informed him that they had taken proper action to redress the grievances of the respondent by informing the 1st appellant and also furnished him with a copy of the letter dated 1.1.2010 sent by them in this regard. However, no action to redress the grievances of the respondent was forthcoming. Therefore, the respondent approached the District Forum complaining that the action of the appellants amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. According to the respondent, she had paid a total amount of Rs.1,12,265.73 towards purchase of the said tiles. The tiles were laid by the workers of the 2nd opposite party. For the purpose of removing the tiles and fixing new ones the respondent would have to spend Rs.12 per sq. ft. as laying charges. Therefore, the respondent claimed compensation from the appellants.

5. On receipt of notice, the appellants entered appearance and filed separate versions, putting forward similar contentions. In the first place, they questioned the maintainability of the com