IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 349/2016 (filed on 17-12-2016)
Petitioner : Jose Joseph,
S/o. Joseph,
Puzhavathottathil house,
Kothanalloor Village,
Manjoor P.O. Kottayam – 686 603.
(Adv. Siby Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.a, Udyog Kendra,
Greater Noida, Noida – 201 310.
Rep. by Managing Director.
2) Manager,
Skylite Roofings, 32/66b,
Nandanath, Kochako Road,
Chakaraparambu, Thammanam,
Ernakulam Dist. – 682 032.
(Adv. Anwar C.K.)
3) The Proprietor,
Aswani Traders,
Peruva, Kottayam – 686 610.
(Adv. K.M. George)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant purchased poly carbonate compact sheet on 09-09-2015 for Rs.30,798/- from the 3rd opposite party for the purpose of the roofing of his residential house. This roofing sheet has a warranty of 10 years. The complainant purchased the said roofing material through his brother Cyriac Joseph, who installed the same on his house. The complainant spent Rs.11,600/- for installation and other charges.
After 3 months, the roofing material became damaged. When complainant informed the 3rd opposite party, the distributor of this material who is the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and they had exchanged the damaged roofing sheet to a new one. The cost of installation and other expenses were paid by the complainant himself to the tune of Rs.11,600/-. After 3 months this roofing became damaged again and the same was informed to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. But so far there was no response from their side.
The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the roofing sheet and the 2nd opposite party is the distributor. The roofing sheets were damaged within one year of purchase and installation, due to manufacturing defect. The opposite parties provided a warranty period of 10 years of defect free service. The roofing sheets developed cracks and holes leading to leakage of water within the period of warranty is clear a case of manufacturing defect. According to the complainant selling a product by claiming a particular standard and quality and the same does not maintain the purity, standard and quality claimed by the manufacturer amounts to unfair trade practice. The illegal acts of the opposite parties of not compensating the damages amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. The complainant had suffered the loss on account of unfair trade practice followed by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss either by rectifying the defect by replacing the defective product at free of cost or by giving compensation to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the damaged roofing material with new one at free of cost or in alternate direct the opposite party to return Rs.53,998/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings.
Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appeared before this Commission and filed separate version.
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased poly carbonate compact sheet from the 3rd opposite party. It is submitted that the warranty of the roofing sheet for 10 years is subject to specifications and ideal mode and criteria of usage by customer after purchase. The complainant put the product beyond the scope of its usage without observing the criteria stipulated by company which may have caused the alleged cracks and holes in the product. It is further submitted in the version that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties have once replaced the product as admitted by the complainant due to improper usage and installation without observing the basic criteria required while installing the polycarbonate material. The polycarbonate materials have a basic scientific propensity of expanding while it is heated. The complainant installed the product on the roof ignoring the above aspect and avoided using “Aluminium Top and Bottom Profile” to overcome the above issue of damaging product when the same is expanded when it is heated. The above said discrepancies in the installation were noted by the opposite party when they handled the 1st complaint raised by the complainant. The complainant again installed the product with unskilled labourers and ignoring the above said criteria causing damage to the product again. The complainant used the product in an unruly manner without observing any criteria suggested by the opposite parties and thereby caused damage to the product. It is submitted that the product has the quality and durability as claimed by the opposite parties within its usage as per the criteria stipulated by the opposite parties. Therefore no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The alleged damage has been caused only due to the improper and unprofessional use of the product.
The version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows.
3rd opposite party admitted that the complainant has purchased a coffee brown colored roofing sheet from the 3rd opposite party. It is submitted that the 3rd opposite party is not aware of the fact, that the roofing sheets have warranty of 10 years and the complainant had spent Rs.11,600/- as installation charges. It is admitted by the 3rd opposite party that the damage of the roofing sheet was informed to the 3rd opposite party at the 1st time. 3rd opposite party denied the averment that the damage at the 2nd instant has informed to him. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is only a dealer of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Any warranty if provided was by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and not by the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is not liable for the terms and conditions of the warranty.
Evidence in this case consist of deposition of Pw1 and Pw2 and Ext.A1 to A5 from the side of the complainant. The report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2.
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased Poly Carbonate Compact Sheet from the 3rd opposite party on 09-09-2015 for an amount of Rs.30,798/-. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the above said poly carbonate sheet and 2nd opposite party is the distributor of the said sheet. Ext.A1 is the receipts issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant for an amount of Rs.30,798/-. There is also no dispute on the fact that after installation the said poly carbonate sheets, which damaged and same was replaced by the opposite parties. The specific case of the complainant is that though the damaged sheets were replaced by the opposite parties, the same was again got damaged within 3 months. Pw1, who is the complainant deposed before the Commission that the poly carbonate sheets, which were manufactured by the 1st opposite party and sold to him through the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have no standard of quality and purity as claimed by the opposite parties. On the other side 1st and 2nd opposite parties contented that the damage was caused to the roofing sheet due to the failure from the part of the complainant to install the product with proper channels and elastomeric bushings and improper and unprofessional use of the product. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, the polycarbonate materials have a basic scientific propensity of expanding while it is heated and to avoid the same use of aluminum top and bottom profile is highly necessary while the installation of the Polly carbonate sheets. Pw1 who is the Expert Commissioner deposed before this Commission that using of proper channel and elastomeric bush is highly necessary while installing the polycarbonate sheet. He further deposed before this Commission that the descriptive poly carbonate sheet was not laid in proper manner. He further deposed that the poly carbonate sheets were fitted in roof structure by screw and washer and joints of the sheet were done by overlapping sheet and fitted with screw and washer. Pw1 further deposed in Ext.C1 that the cracks in the polycarbonate sheet were mostly found on the joints of sheets rather than other screw fitted points. Pw1 categorically reported in his expert commission report that the reason for cracks and holes was due to the absence of proper channel and gaskets in the laying. During the chief examination, Pw1 deposed that the poly carbonate sheets which were sold by the opposite parties to the complainant where not of inferior quality when compared to other similar products available in the market.
On a thoughtful evaluation of above discussed evidence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of August, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Jose Joseph
Pw2 – Joshy Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of bill no.5710 dtd.09-09-15 issued by 3rd opposite party
A2 – Copy of warranty card
A3 - Photos of roofing materials (4 nos.)
A4 –Copy of lawyers notice dtd.20-10-2016
A5 – Postal receipt
Commission report
C1 – Commission report dtd.09-11-17 by Joshy Mathew.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil`
By Order
Senior Superintendent
