STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/336/2021 NEW RAJASTHAN MARBLES PRESENT ADDRESS - S N PURAM KANICHUKULANGARA CHERTHALA 688623,KERALA.

MALWA CERAMIC LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - CHAKKOLAS S P G MVG MILLS PVT LTD DOOR NO 4V/38 OPPOSITE APPOLLO TYRES KALAMASSERY COCHIN ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus UDAYAKUMAR PRESENT ADDRESS - JAYALAYAM VEETIL KALAVAMKODAM P O CHERTHALA

688536,KERALA. P P SURENDRAN PRESENT ADDRESS - PATTEKATTU VEEDU K R PURAM P O CHERTHALA 688536 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 05/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.336/2021 ORDER DATED : 05.01.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.294/2017 on the files of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1.

New Rajasthan Marble, S.N. Puram, Kanichukulangara, Cherthala –

688523

2.

Malwa Ceramic Ltd, Chakkolas, S.P.G.M.V.G Mills, Pvt. Ltd., Door No.4V/38, Opposite AppoloTyres, Kalamasseri, Cochin (by Adv. Damodaran Potti, Amicus Curiae)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Udayakumar, Jayalayam Veetil, KalavamkodamP.O, Cherthala – 688 536 (by Adv. Divakarlal D. & Adv. Manju Antony)

2.

P.P. Surendran, Pattekattu Veedu, K.R. Puram P.O, Cherthala – 688 536

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.294/2017 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant constructed a house at Ottappunna, for which he engaged the third opposite party as the contractor. On 20.04.2017, the complainant purchased floor tiles from the first opposite party, which were manufactured by the second opposite party. The tiles were laid and after laying the tiles, it was found, within a short period, that there was fading of the colour of the tiles. The item purchased by the complainant was “super black”. The matter was informed to the first opposite party, who in turn informed the matter to the second opposite party. The second opposite party inspected the tiles and assured the complainant that the tiles would be replaced by them. The complainant purchased 220 tiles of 4 sq.ft. super black Malwa for Rs.300/- per tile. The total price was Rs.66,000/- and the laying charge was Rs.40/- per sq.ft. The total amount spent was Rs.35,200/-. Now an amount of Rs.20,000/- is required to remove the tiles. The tiles were laid at the staircase and balcony and hence the handrails had to be removed and refixed, for which an amount of Rs.50,000/- is required. The complainant had to shift to a rented house during the time of laying the tiles, for which he had to spend Rs.10,000/-. The act of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. The first opposite party filed a version contending that the vitrified tiles do not suffer from any manufacturing defect. There was no transaction between the complainant and the first opposite party and hence the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. As per the records, the tiles were purchased by the third opposite party. The first opposite party was not aware as to whether the complainant visited his shop or not. The first opposite party purchased 1000 boxes of tiles from the second opposite party and from the said load, the tiles were given to the third opposite party. On 30.11.2016, 1000 boxes were delivered to the third opposite party. The complainant purchased only 220 pieces (55 boxes) from the first opposite party. The remaining boxes were also sold. However, there was no complaint. The tiles were manufactured in bulk and the alleged complaint was only in respect of 220 pieces. The colour c