KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 194/2006

JUDGMENT DATED:  28-01-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU  :   PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

Manager,

Ramco Industries Ltd., Bharathi Villa,

Residency Road, Kadappakkada,

Kollam-1.

          (By Adv. Sri. K.R. Haridas)

                    Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.      D. Unnikrishna Pillai,

          Thuruthiyil House, Podiyadi P.O.,

          Thiruvalla – 689110.

2.      The Proprietor,

          Plamparambil Agencies, Podiyadi P.O.,

          Thiruvalla – 689 110.

          (R2 rep. by Adv. Sri. P.C. Thomas & Sri. Shaji Cherian)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                        The appellant is the opposite party in OP No. 167/03 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 7,488/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint till the date of the order and thereafter at 6% and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs.

          2.          It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 24 Nos. of asbestos sheets manufactured by the first opposite party/appellant for a sum of Rs. 7,488/- from the second opposite party dealer on 28-09-2002.  During the rainy season, it was found that all the sheets were leaking.  As directed by the dealer, the first opposite party was contacted and representatives of the first opposite party inspected the premises and thereafter directed to transport the sheets to the first opposite party at Quilon and assured to replace the same.  According to the complainant, dismantling the sheets and transporting the same will be much costly.  Hence he has sought for refund of the amount with compensation and costs.

          3.          Only the first opposite party contested the matter.  It was contended that there was no sufficient slope to the roofing and that the same was the reason for the alleged leaking.  It was only as a gesture of goodwill that the company offered to supply fresh sheets.  It is contended that there was no defects to the A.C sheets.

          4.          Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 series and A2.

          5.          The Forum has relied on Ext.A2 letter sent by the first opposite party to the complainant dated 04-09-2003 mentioning that the sheets would be replaced if the sheets are returned to the first opposite party company.  It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant has failed to adduce expert evidence as contemplated under the statute.

          6.          We find that as pointed out by the Forum, the evidence of PW1 that the lot of A.C sheets purchased included two sheets manufactured by another company by name ‘Vishak’ and that the above sheets had no defects.  Ext.A1 bill included the costs of the above sheets also.  The total amount mentioned therein is Rs. 8,327/-.  Ext.A2 letter would mention about the visit of the Sales Executive of the appellant and it was noted that the complainant has not provided sufficient slope and also not provided sufficient ventilation.  All the same, it was offered to supply fresh sheets on condition of returning the defective sheets.  The evidence of DW1, the representative of the first opposite party is also to the same effect.  But, the fact remains that dismantling and transportation expenses would have to be borne by the complainant.  The amount of the sheets is only Rs. 7,488/-.  The direction to bring back the sheets in such circumstance rather amounts to the rejection of the request for replacement.  We find that in view of the amount involved adducing expert evidence is not contemplated.  Further the contents of Ext.A2 letter itself would disclose that the sheets were defective and had manufacturing defect.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum.

          In the result, the order of the Forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed

              JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT