Producer held liable for faulty tiles

The National Commission observed that the State Commission had blindly relied on Johnson's report without bothering to consider the Institute's report and Dr Mishra's evidence

Jamnabhai Arjanbhai Ghedia purchased 62 boxes of 36 x 36 inch snow-white coloured vitrified tiles manufactured by 

H & R Johnson India. They were purchased from Patel Granite for renovating Ghedia’s home.
 

The tiles developed cuts and scratches. Ghedia attributed these to the product being substandard. He complained to the manufacturer. He also approached the Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute, Jadavpur, Kolkata, for examining the tiles. The report, signed by Dr S N Mishra, the scientist in charge at the Institute, opined that the tiles were substandard.
 

The manufacturer refused to resolve Ghedia’s grievance on the ground that in-house testing showed the tiles to be of proper quality. Ghedia filed a complaint before the Rajkot District Consumer Commission.
 

The manufacturer contested the complaint. Johnson questioned the correctness of the Institute’s report on the ground that there were discrepancies regarding the size and type of tiles. Johnson relied on its own internal examination findings to argue that the tiles were perfect, and relied on the affidavit in support filed by Sudipta Saha, the vice president heading its industrial product and natural resources division. The manufacturer also claimed that the cuts and scratches could have occurred due to the shifting of heavy furniture after the installation of the tiles.
 

Ghedia examined Dr Mishra, who explained the discrepancies in the report as being typographical errors. The District Commission accepted the findings of the Institute on the ground that it was scientific and had been properly proved. It rejected the manufacturer’s opinion on the ground that its vice president did not have any technical knowledge, and that the manufacturer had failed to produce the evidence of any expert to substantiate its contentions. The District Commission also refused to believe the manufacturer’s plea about cuts and scratches having occurred due to the shifting of heavy furniture, as no evidence was produced in support, while Ghedia had produced photographs to show that there was no heavy furniture as alleged.
 

The District Commission allowed the complaint and ordered Johnson to refund Rs 1,24,860 paid for the tiles, along with 8 per cent interest. It also ordered reimbursement of labour and fitting charges, and awarded Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
 

Johnson appealed against the order before the Gujarat State Commission, which held that the manufacturer’s own examination report had not been given due consideration. It set aside the order and dismissed the complaint.
 

Ghedia challenged the order by filing a revision petition. The National Commission observed that the State Commission had blindly relied on Johnson’s own report without bothering to consider the Institute’s report and the evidence of Dr Mishra. The National Commission pointed out that Johnson had not made any effort to provide expert evidence in support of its contentions, and that the affidavit of its own vice president, who did not have any technical knowledge, could not have any evidentiary value.
 

In its order of August 6, 2024, delivered by Justice A P Sahi for the Bench along with Dr Inder Jit Singh, the National Commission held that the order of the District Commission was based on a correct appreciation of the facts, while that of the State Commission was incorrect. Accordingly, the Commission allowed the appeal and restored the order passed by the District Commission in Ghedia’s favour.

The writer is a consumer activist