IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 182/2019 (Filed on 30/10/2019)
Complainant : Jomon Joseph,
Puthenparambil House,
Muttambalam P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. George Emmanuel Podipara)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) Al Fatha Trading Company
Building No.XIII/911
M.L. Road, Kodimatha,
Kottayam.
Rep. by its Managing Director
K.A. Ashraf
(Adv. Karjet Koduvath)
(2) Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd.
F-Block, 1st Floor,
International Trade Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019
Rep. by Sanjay Singal
Chariman & Managing Director.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
Complainant on 19-9-2019 purchased 1896.880 sq. ft. of Tafford Grey Sheet having 3.5 gauge manufactured by second opposite party and sold by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.53,112/-.Complainant intended to construct light roofing over his building approached the first opposite party and the first opposite party made the complainant to believe that the Tafford sheets manufactured by the 2nd opposite party are of fine quality, having 3.5 gauges and their products are of superior quality and they are in conformity with the ISI specification and having ISI certificate. The complainant on believing the words of the 1st opposite party, purchased the above said Tafford sheets having 1 meter width along with other required materials from the 1st opposite party.
The complainant completed the paving of the roof on 21-9-2019. There was rain during night on 22-9-2019 and complainant noticed that the sheets were rusted and red water was seen flowing from the roof top of the sheets purchased from the 1st opposite party.
Complainant informed the loss and damages to the 1st opposite party who came over the site, inspected and satisfied that the sheets sold by him are defective and agreed to settle the issues within a short period by replacing other good sheets. When the complainant enquired the 1st opposite party stated that he is expecting reply from 2nd opposite party and there after tried to persuade the complainant in different ways stating various matters. On 12-10-2019, first opposite party declared that unless 2nd opposite party agrees he cannot satisfy the demands of the complainant.
It is alleged in the complaint that the total sq. Ft. demanded as 10 feet length of 8 sheets, 14 feet of 10 sheets and 16 feet of 19 sheets will come at 1730 sq. ft. only, but in the invoice it is assessed at 1,898.880sq.ft. and realised excessive amount committing negligence and latches by the 1st opposite party. The thickness of the Tafford sheets is declared at 3.5mm the actual thickness of the sheets manufactured and sold to the complainant by the opposite parties is only 3.2 mm. The Tafford sheets supplied are manufactured with inferior quality of materials required. The Tafford sheets manufactured by the 2nd opposite party are of inferior quality and they were not in conformity with the ISI specifications. There were substantial defects in the manufacture of the Tafford sheets and its sale. The opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence it is prayed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for removing the Tafford Sheet and to fit with good quality of Tafford sheets on the top of the complainant’s house and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and mental agony caused to complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of this litigation.
Upon notice from this Commission, first oppression party appeared before the Commission and filed version.
Notice to the second opposite party delivered on 6-11-2021 as per the track record. Despite the receipt of notice, second opposite party did not care to appear before this Commission or to file version within the statutory period. Hence the second opposite party set ex party.
Version of the first opposite party is as follows:
It is true that petitioner purchased 1896.880 of Tafford Grey Sheet manufactured by second opposite party from the first opposite party’s company on 19-9-2019. The complainant visited the opposite party’s shop on 19/9/2019 and demanded Tafford sheets manufactured by second opposite party. The complainant personally inspected the products and satisfied with quality of the products and the complainant saw the ISI specification on the products and after satisfying himself about the goods, the complainant purchased the products. No promises or assurances have been made to the complainant to purchase Tafford sheets manufactured by second opposite party as alleged in the complaint.
The complainant took delivery of items from the shop of the first opposite party in the vehicle arranged by the complainant himself. It was transported in the vehicle driven by the driver of the vehicle, not accompanied by the complainant. Therefore, the first opposite party believe that the goods used at the site by the complainant are not the goods purchased from the shop of the first opposite party. However, when the complainant raised a complaint as to the quality of the goods, the first opposite party visited the site and he could not identify whether the material used at the site is the material purchased from his shop. According to the rational analysis of the 1st opposite party, the defects if any was caused only due to the irregular cutting, grinding and fixing of the sheets by the workers who are not experienced in doing the work. Since a complaint was raised, 2nd opposite party was informed about the complaint of the complainant to the first opposite party and 2nd opposite party sent an agent and had taken sample for the investigation as to the allegation of the complainant.
The averment that there was rain during night on 22/9/2019 and complainant noticed that sheets were rusted and red water was seen flowing from the roof top of the sheets is false. The allegation that the 1st opposite party satisfied that the sheets sold by him are defective and agreed to settle the issues within a short period by replacing other good sheets is false. The averment in paragraph 7 of the complaint is false. The Tafford grey sheets purchased by the complainant are having 1 m 14 cm width and are having 1896.880 square feet. The 1st opposite party is only a dealer of various roofing materials on principal-to-principal basis selling such varied products on different brands on a meager margin. The services and quality of the products are not within the preview of the first opposite party. Even though if any damages were caused to the items purchased by the complainant, the 2nd opposite party is solely responsible and liable to compensate the complainant. The first opposite party had acted as a prudent dealer and no deficiency of service occurred from the part of the first opposite party.
Complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A4. V.A. vasu filed proof affidavit in lieu chief examination from the side of the complainant. K.A. Asharaf who is Managing Director of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination .No documentary evidence on the side of the opposite party. Report from the National Institute of Technology Calicut is marked as exhibit X1. Report of the Advocate Commission is marked as exhibit X2.
On evaluation of complaint, version and the evidence on record we would like to consider the following points:
- Whether the t complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point number 1 and 2 together.
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant purchased Tafford Grey sheet which is manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party on 19-9-2019. It is proved by Exhibit A1 which is a tax invoice issued on 19-9-2019 by the first opposite party to the complainant that the complainant had purchased 1896.880 square feet Tafford grey sheets and paid Rs.45,913 to the complainant to the first opposite party towards the price of the same. By purchasing goods from the first opposite party which is manufactured by the second opposite party the complaint comes under the definition of the consumer as defined in section 2(7) of the consumer Protection Act 2019.
The specific case of the complainant is that being attracted by the assurance given by the first opposite party the complainant purchased the tafford roofing sheets which is manufactured by the second opposite party. Though the roofing works completed on 22-9-2019 and in the midnight of the same day in heavy rain the paints of the roofing sheets were washed away and caused the erosion of the roofing sheets. According to the complainant the roofing sheets which were sold by the first opposite party and manufactured by the second opposite party is of inferior quality and not in conformity with the ISI specification.
In order to prove his case the complainant applied to send the samples of the roofing sheets to an accredited laboratory. Accordingly this Commission appointed an Advocate to inspect the building of the complainant and to collect samples of the roofing sheets in a sealed packet and to produce the same before the
Commission.
The Advocate Commissioner along with Exhibit X2 report produced three samples which were collected by him from the building of the complaint before this Commission. Thereafter this Commission sent these samples to the National Institute of Technology Calicut to inspect and ascertain the quality of the subject matter roofing sheets. The report from the National Institute of Technology Calicut is marked as exhibit X2. On going through the Exhibit X2 we can see that the surface coating of the sheets is of poor quality. Due to the poor occasion or thickness of the surface coating the metal sheet started corrosion. It is further reported in Exhibit X1 that the presence of aluminium (26.81%) in this corrugated sheet is unexpected, showing poor quality of the metal sheet. Therefore it is proved that the tafford sheets which were manufactured by the second opposite party and sold by the first opposite party to the complainant is of inferior quality.
Section 2(47) Of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines an unfair trade practice as:
“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which for the purpose of gaining advantage over other traders or consumers or for restricting competition in any market, adopts any unfair method or practice including any of the following practices, namely -(i)making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which-(a)falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
Here in case on hand the complainant argues that the Tafford sheets had been purchased by him believing the assurance given by the first opposite party that the roofing sheets manufactured by the second opposite party is of good quality and in conformity with the ISI standard and specifications. As discussed earlier it is proved by Exhibit X1 that the Tafford sheets are of inferior quality. It is admitted in the version that the first opposite party is a dealer of roofing materials of various manufactures including second opposite party on principal-to-principal basis. Since the sale between the second opposite party and the first opposite party was on principal-to-principal basis the first opposite party is also responsible for the defect of the product. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice by giving an assurance to the complainant that the tafford sheets are of good quality in fact which have the standard and quality as claimed by the opposite parties.
It is proved by exhibit A4 that the complainant had spent Rs.20,000/- towards the labour charges for laying the roofing sheets. No doubt the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. Though the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for removing the defective sheets and lay the same with good quality sheets he did not any evidence to prove the cost for the same.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that allowing a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Thus we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.
- We here by directs the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant as compensation for the hardship caused to the complainant due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this litigation.
Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the Order within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this Order, failing which the compensation amount will carry @9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2024.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – invoice dtd.19-09-2019 by 1st opposite party
A2 – E-way bill No.511135033563 dtd.19-09-2019
A3 – Estimate for required Tafford sheets prepared by Vasu
A4 – Receipt for Rs.20000 dtd.21-09-2019
Court Exhibit
X1 – Sample testing report dtd.22-12-2023 NIT, Calicut
X2- Report dtd.9-08-2023 submitted by Adv. Rameez Kassim
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
