Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/15/348

S.Yesodharan Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asokan,Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                          SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

                          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                          SRI.VIJU.V.R                     : MEMBER

CC.NO.348/2015 (Filed on : 28.06.2021)

ORDER DATED : 18.07.2022

COMPLAINANT

S.Yesodharan Nair,

S/o.Sankara Pillai,

Thrupthi House, Anayara,

Thiruvananthapuram

(By Adv.Mohan Chacko & Regi.C.K)

                                                                   VS

 OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. Proprietor,

Siva Karthika Pipe House,

Marakkada Road, Chalai,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

2. The Managing Director,

JSW Steel Ltd, Grande Palladium, 6^th Floor,

175, C.S.T, Road, Kalina, Santa Cruz, Mumbai

 

(OP1 by Adv.K.L.Hareesh kumar)

(OP2 by Adv.U.Abdul Shukoor)

ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                 : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant with an intention for renovating his house decided to roof the front portion of his building with sheets. The complainant along with one Mr.Sajeev, went to purchase the roofing sheet from Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram and entrusted the said Sajeev to install the same. The complainant on the influence of advertisements and the firm belief that Jindal labeled sheets are of very high quality, the complainant purchased the same from first opposite party. On 27.05.2015 the complainant purchased 14 feet sheets 12 in numbers, 12 feet sheets 4 in numbers, eight feet sheets 4 in numbers, 8 feet ridge 11 in numbers and its accessories totaling to an amount of Rs.50,823/- from the first opposite party. All the sheets were having the marking of JSW Steel Limited AZ 17. The complainant with the above materials roofed the front portion of his house by 30.05.2015. Unfortunately, by 07.06.2015 a week after the installation it was noticed that all the newly installed sheets were rusting. Immediately the complainant contacted both the opposite parties 1 & 2. On enquiry it is understood that M/s.Mirones Builders and Developers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta District are the authorized dealer of Jindal sheets in Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant informed them to all the incidents happened to him. After that the Area Manager of the Jindal Company along with the first opposite party visited the site taken photographs and returned with the assurance that the sheets will be replaced within two days. But there was no response from the opposite parties 1 & 2. The complainant sent an advocate notice and both the opposite parties have received the same. The purchase of the sheets caused mental agony and loss to the complainant. The act of opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

   2.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party has averred that the allegations made by the complainant are baseless and untrue. The complainant had purchased some roofing sheets from the first opposite party and the first opposite party is only a sub agent of Modern Enterprises, Marakada Road, Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram who are the main dealers of JSW Steel and the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The first opposite party approached the local dealer of JSW for rectification of the complaint but they are not showing any action to replace the same.  The complainant is fully aware that Modern Agencies, Chalai are the sole distributors of the JSW and ignoring this fact he is willfully avoiding to include them in the party array. The first opposite party requested the complainant to approach the Modern Agencies to provide the best possible solution in this matter. The complainant has filed this complaint is false allegations and frivolous statements, hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost to first opposite party.

3. The second opposite party has contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The first opposite party is not a agent of the second opposite party. The complainant is to prove that the roofing sheet purchased by the complainant is manufactured by the second opposite party JSW Steel Limited. The company produces only quality roofing sheets with standard specifications of the ISO. The products will be put for sale only after obtaining test certificate ascertaining the quality and ISO specification. Duplicate roofing sheets are seen produced and marked with emblem and labels resembling of the second opposite party. The second opposite party has only five authorized agencies in Kerala, they are at Alappuzha, Cochin, Kollam, Pathanamthitta and Thrissur. The roofing sheets after production are kept in moist free godown with proper storage. The company is very particular to avoid moisture in between the colour quoted roofing sheets. If the colour quoted roofing sheets are kept in moisture conditions for days together it may cause peeling of colour quoting and rusting. If single roofing sheets are put on roof allowing water to drain of it will not rust or peel off even after a long period. In order to ascertain whether the roofing sheet is original JSW it has to be sent to chemical analysis. The second opposite party have no authorized distributors in Thiruvananthapuram in JSW Steel Limited. The first opposite party is not a distributor of second opposite party. There is no deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party, hence complaint may be dismissed with cost to second opposite party.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 &2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

4.       Issues (i)& (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 and has produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1to P5. The PW1 was cross-examined by 2^nd OP. Eventhough ample time were given to 1^st OP they haven’t given any oral or documentary evidence before this commission. 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as DW1.DW1 was cross-examined by complainant .The commission report was marked as Ext C1. Only the complainant has filed argument note.

    5.   It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant has purchased roofing sheets from them. The 1^st OP took the contention that they are only a sub agent of modern agencies & modern agencies are the dealers of 2^nd OP. But they have not produced any evidence to prove the same. They are also admitted in their version that they have approached the local dealer for the rectification of the complaint, but they are not taking any steps to replace the same. So it is clear that the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are true.

6.       Eventhough the 2^nd OP has took the contention that they have only five authorized agents in Kerala & 1^st OP is not their agent cannot be accepted as they have not produced any evidence to prove their contentions. Another contention raised by them is that the sheets were not made by them. The complainant purchased duplicate sheets having the emblem & labels resembling that of 2^nd OP. During cross-examination DW1 has deposed that version ൽ duplicate സാധനങ്ങൾ വിൽക്കുന്നതായി പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്‍ . രേഖകൾ ഹാജരാക്കിയതായി അറിയില്ല . case വന്നതിനു ശേഷവും OP1  നെതിരായോ മറ്റാർക്കെങ്കിലും എതിരേയോ നടപടി എടുത്തിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണോ?(Q) ശരിയല്ല(A) But they have not taken any steps to prove that the sheets purchased by the complainants are duplicate ones.  In Ext.C1 it is clearly stated that the sheets used in the roofing are not manufactured by them is not correct. It is also noted in the commission report that almost all the sheets used for the roofing’s are seen rusted/corroded and having dark brown spots all over them. The opposite parties 1 &2have not made any effort to prove that the findings in Ext. C1 were not correct. The Ext. C1 report was not challenged by opposite parties 1 & 2. So it remains unchallenged. So it clear that the 1^st OP has given inferior quality sheets to the complainant which was manufactured by 2^nd OP.

7.       Hence we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 &2. Hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

       In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1&2 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 50,823/- and pay        Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs. 2,500/- towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 18^th day of July 2022.

                                                                                                Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                           Sd/-  

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.348/2015

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - S.Yesodharan Nair

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Original invoice bill dated 27/05/2015
Ext.P2                   - Copy of advocate notice dated 03/07/2015

Ext.P3                   - Original postal receipt

Ext.P4                   - Original acknowledgement receipt

Ext.P5                   - photographs
List of witness for the opposite parties

DW1                     - Anujith.K.R

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibit

Ext.C1                            - Commission Report

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                        PRESIDENT