IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 200/2020 (filed on 04-12-2020)
Petitioner : M.J. Sebastian,
Mullankuzhi,
Pallikkathod, Anikkad,
Kottayam – 686 503.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : M.M. Muhammad Usman,
H.O. Boat way,
Ernakulam, Cochi – 682031.
(Adv.P.U. Ziyad, Adv. P.A. Rabeez
and Adv. Shamil Basheer)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complainant’s case is that he has purchased PC Compact15x2x10x4mm clear sheets for roofing the pergola of his house from the opposite party on 12-02-2020 vide bill no.By933 for Rs.9010.15. The said sheet when taken for the roofing purpose broke through the centre and became useless. The said sheets were seen rolled in the opposite party’s shop. The complainant kept the said sheets as in the same condition in which he bought it from the shop. The opposite party assured him at the time of purchase that the said sheet was made of high quality material and would not be affected by any climate change even if exposed for a long time. The said sheets were kept at the house of the complainant and were used after the lockdown due to the covid pandemic. When the sheets were taken for use they were seen broken. The complainant intimated the opposite party immediately and the opposite party assured to send a person to verify. But even after two weeks, nobody turned up so when the complainant contacted the opposite party, the shop owner replied in a hostile manner. He threatened the complainant that they were ready to face the consequences if the complainant take any legal steps against them. So the complaint is filed for compensation for the grievances occurred due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.
Upon receiving notice from the Commission, the opposite party appeared and filed version.
The opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased PC Solid sheets on 12-02-2020 from the opposite party. All the products of the opposite party including the PC solid sheets purchased by the complainant are of premium quality. The opposite party is an establishment of a goodwill of 63 years and because of their credibility in the industry they are the leading dealers in the field. The sheets in this category are being sent from the company in 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 4mm thickness and again in 6mm, 8mm, 10mm thickness. The complainant purchased 4mm thickness sheet, which comes in a 50 feet roll. The said 4 mm pc sheet are normally kept as spread if it comes upto 12 feet length. Otherwise, if the sheets are rolled they would break. The said 4mm pc sheets can be kept in a rolled position, if the inside diameter can be kept as 12 feet. The 1,2,3 mm thickness sheets also can be kept only upto 10 feet diameter. So these sheets can be kept rolled only if they have at least a length of 12 feet. Because of this, the opposite party insist their customers that only the sheets with thickness of 1and 2 mm be transported as folded. But if the customer is purchasing a 4 mm thickness sheets below 12 feet, the opposite party do not allow them to carry the sheets as rolled. The manufacturers after conducting bend test have certified the curve of each category sheet according to its thickness. The opposite party sells the sheets according to the directions given by the manufacturers as per the said bend test. While so keeping the pc sheets of 4mm thickness and a length of only 9 feet as rolled is the mistake committed by the consumer. Thus the sole reason for the breakage of the sheet is the rolling of the sheets. The opposite party has never kept the said sheets in a rolled position. The loss occurred to the complainant as he has purchased the 9 feet long 4 mm thick sheet and kept it rolled throughout the lockdown period. If the complainant had kept the said sheets in a strait mode, it would not have been broken. On 12-02-2020 the complainant reached the opposite party’s shop only in the late hours, when the opposite party was about to close the shop. Even then at the time of loading the staff of the opposite party warned the complainant not to fold the sheet, but to keep it straight. But the inspite of the warning the complainant had rolled the sheets for his convenience. The opposite party had further intimated the complainant that as he was taking the product in an auto as soon as reaching the site he should keep the sheet in a straight position. So whatever loss happened to the complainant is only because of his negligence and not because of the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice of the opposite party. If the complainant is alleging that the sheets are of the poor quality, the opposite party being a dealer of the product is not at all liable for that. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant deposed as Pw1 and produced Exts.A1 and A2.The opposite party adduced evidence vide proof affidavit and Ext.B1. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the pleadings and evidence and frame the following issues.
- Whether the opposite party has succeeded in proving the allegation of deficiency in service alleged against them?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1&2
The complainant’s allegation is that the PC Compact15x2x10x4mm clear sheets purchased by him from the opposite party for roofing purpose were seen broken at the time of usage. The opposite party puts the responsibility of the damage happened to the product upon the complainant as he did not follow the directions given by the opposite party for properly keeping the said sheets.
The complainant purchased sheets of 4mm thickness and with a length of 9 feet, which is admitted by the opposite party also. The defends taken by the opposite party is that as per the specifications of the manufacturer the sheets of certain thickness cannot be folded or rolled for a longtime. The sheet purchased by the complainant is of a thickness of 4mm, which is to be kept as rolled only if there is a minimum length of 12 feet as per the specifications. If the sheets are to be kept by rolling there should a radius of at least 12 feet. The sheets purchased by the complainant were only of 9 feet length. Sheets having a length below 12 feet is not permitted to be kept rolled as per the bend test conducted by the manufacturers. At the time of delivery, according to the opposite party, they insisted to keep the sheets straight as soon as unloaded in the worksite. But as the complainant did not follow the instruction given by the opposite party, the said sheets were damaged. The defends of the opposite party is that the consumer should follow the guidelines given by the manufacture as per bend test of the sheets which is communicated only to the dealers. Here the opposite party has no case that they had very well communicated the above said specification vide some brochures or leaflets to the consumer. At the time of argument also, the counsel for the opposite party argued that the staff of the opposite party did not give specific instruction for the keeping of the sheets purchased by the complainant as they were transported by some other people and not the complainant himself. The complainant also has stated that he was not given any kind of instructions for the keeping of the sheets. Again the complainant has deposed that the sheets were kept rolled in the shop of the opposite party and it was loaded to the vehicle as such by the opposite party’s staff.
The opposite party’s contention is that as the sheets were kept rolled for several months due to lockdown which is not a proper way of keeping the same, the sheets got damaged and broked.
Here Ext.B1 is a document which describes the product quality and the specifications of the technical details of solid uncoated and coated sheets. But the complainant here in being a layman is not capable of understanding all these technical terms in B1 even if it was given to him. Here the opposite party has not produced any document or evidence to prove that they had given proper direction at proper time for the safe keeping of the goods purchased from them. In order to give a quality service, the opposite party is bound to educate their customers about the quality and usage of the product they sell. But we find that the opposite party here in has failed to do so. So also the opposite party has failed to give proper after sale service to their customer. They were not ready even to visit the complainant’s house and assure him future services. The complainant has suffered financial loss and hardship due to the defect of the product he purchased. Hence we find that the opposite party has failed to disprove the allegation of deficiency in service against them and so they are liable to compensate the complainant for the consequential hardships. Thus we allow the complaint as follows,
- The opposite party is directed to replace the defective sheets with new one or to return Rs.9010.15 (Rupees Nine thousand ten and fifteen paise ) to the complainant along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of purchase ie.12-02-2020 till realization
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 6% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of November, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Sebastian M.J.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 – Photos of sheets
A2 – Copy of bill No.BY933 dtd.03-12-2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
B1 – Brochure
By Order
Senior Superintendent
