STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/409/2017 null ANNA TRADE LINKS PRESENT ADDRESS - N H BY-PASS, THYKOODAM, VYTILLA P O, ERANAKULAM, COCHIN-

682019 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus P M SEBASTIAN PRESENT ADDRESS - MANAGING PARTNER, WELCARE HOSPITAL, VYTILLA P O, ERANAKULAM, COCHIN- 682019 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL Nos. 409/2017 and 566/2017 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 14.02.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 556/2014 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPEAL No. 409/2017 APPELLANT:

M/s Anna Trade Links, N.H. By-pass, Thykoodam, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam, Cochin-682

019.

(By Adv. N.C. Sajith and Adv. Jeemon P. Abraham)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. P.M. Sebastian, Managing Partner, Welcare Hospital, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam, Cochin-682 019 represented by Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Cherian M.T.

(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V. and Adv. Rajesh Vijayendran)

2. Somany Ceramics Ltd. 29/370, Devi Tower, Thykoodam, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam, Cochin-682 019, represented by its Manager..

(By Adv. Prasanth S. and Adv. Varsha Bhaskar)

APPEAL No. 566/2017 APPELLANT:

rd M/s Somany Ceramics Ltd., 3 Floor, KBS Safa Plaza, Geethanjali Junction, Near Vyttila, Cochin-19 represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Tomychan PM and having its headquarters at Kassar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

(By Adv. Prasanth S. and Adv. Varsha Bhaskar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. P.M. Sebastian, Managing Partner, Welcare Hospital, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam, Cochin-682 019 represented by Power of Attorney Holder Sri. Cherian M.T.

(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V. and Adv. Rajesh Vijayendran)

2. M/s Anna Trade Links, N.H. By-pass, Thykoodam, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam, Cochin-682 019.

(By Adv. N.C. Sajith and Adv. Jeemon P. Abraham)

COMMON JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT st The appellant in appeal No. 409/2017 is the 1 opposite party, the appellant in nd st Appeal No. 566/2017 is the 2 opposite party and the 1 respondent in both the appeals is the complainant in C.C. No. 556/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short “the District Commission”).

st

2. The complainant purchased tiles from the 1 opposite party on 26.02.2013 and 14.03.2013, spending a total amount of Rs. 4,71,200/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred only). The tiles were laid by the workers who were familiar with doing the said work. However, after a few days, it was noticed that the tiles had defects and their color got faded. In the said circumstances, the matter was st nd informed to the 1 opposite party, who in turn informed the matter to the 2 opposite st nd party. Even though the 1 opposite party promised to replace the tiles, the 2 opposite party was not prepared to do so. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

st

3. The 1 opposite party filed a version contending that the transaction was a commercial one and hence the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the st District Commission. The purchase of the tiles was admitted by the 1 opposite party.

st However, the 1 opposite party contended that there was no fading of color as alleged.

st The 1 opposite party also never gave any promise or assurance regarding the quality of the tiles. The request for replacing the tiles was made after a long period after laying st the tiles. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1 opposite party.

nd

4. The 2 opposite party remained ex-parte.

5. Before the District Commission, Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked for the st complainant.