Kerala

Idukki

CC/159/2021

Jiji Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

George - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Rajeev Thomas

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :12/11/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of July 2023

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.159/2021

Between

Complainant                           :  Jiji Joseph,

                                                   Edanackaparambil House,

                                                   Neyyassery P.O., Neyyassery,

                                                   Thoduuzha.

                                                    (By Adv.Rajeev Thomas Padathil)

                                                           And

Opposite Party                       :   George and Company,

                                                   Vengalloor, Represented by its Proprietor,

                                                   Thoduuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

                                                    (By Adv.Lissy M.M.)

                                                             

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant filed this complaint under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  Brief facts of this complaint are discussed hereunder:- 

1 . Complainant has purchased ‘Alu-Zinc’ roofing sheets for Rs.34,953/- with 5 year warranty from opposite party on 25/11/2017 and 05/12/2017 for put the roofing sheets to his house and cow farm.  Opposite party has given the bills to him.

2 . Thereafter, complainant has done the roofing of his house and cow farm using these sheets.  But, after some days,  Alu-Zinc’ roofing sheets had cracked   and   broken   and   this   was   informed   to  opposite  party   soon. 

(Cont....2)

 

-2-

Later, these cracks increased, complainant approached opposite party many times.  Opposite party’s agents have come on 17/02/2021 and they assured that sheets would be changed with new sheets at their expense.

3 . As the assurance of opposite party was not maintained, complainant has sent Lawyer notice on 12/03/2021 and it was accepted by opposite party on 13/03/2021.  The reply notice was sent showing false reasons.

4 . Opposite party has assured high quality for these roofing materials and  sold to complainant.  But, this was low quality sheets and therefore, it was cracked and damaged.  Due to the selling of these low quality roofing sheets, opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice to complainant.  Hence complainant is entitled to get high quality roofing sheets instead of  poor quality sheets from opposite party.  Otherwise, opposite party is directed to refund the price of the sheets to complainant.  Also, complainant has right to get labour expenses of the amount of Rs.30,000/- for putting  these roofing sheets.  Complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.  Hence complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

1 . Opposite party may be directed to give high quality roofing sheets instead of these poor quality sheets to complainant, in the alternate to refund  price of the sheets amounting to Rs.34,953/- to complainant.

2 . Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as labour wages for putting up the new sheets.

3 . Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to complainant.

 

(Cont....3)

 

-3-

Upon notice from this Commission, opposite party has entered appearance by counsel.  Written version is filed.  Opposite party’s contentions are briefly discussed hereunder.

1 . According to opposite party, they have not known either about the purchase of these alleged roofing sheets from them or that the roofs of complainant’s house and cow farm were done by using these sheets, therefore, complainant has to prove it.

2 . All the allegations in this complaint are false, hence denied.

3 . The unskilled workers have grazed these roofing sheets without giving necessary slopes there and due to this reason; flow of the water was blocked from the roof.  Moreover, due to the overflow of water from the tank which is placed on the terrace, water falls on these sheets with force.   This is the reason for fading colour of these sheets this may cause damage to  protected coating of these sheets.  Opposite party gives directions about these to customers when selling the products.

 4 . While these sheets were put up by screwing carelessly, damage may have been caused to these sheets.  Also instead of using self screwing machine, manual screwing was done due to which rubber washer along with  screws were broken and melt the washer and thus damage was  caused to sheets also.  Due to loosing of screws sheets may have fallen down and water were have leaked through holes in sheets caused due to defective screwing.    Further, it may happen by poor quality screws were used.  Also, it is possible that rusts will be formed into these sheets.

5 . Opposite party gives Geo Roof installation instructions to customers as soon as the products are sold.  It is specifically informed to every customers about the method of putting up of sheets.  So, if any damages

(Cont....4)

 

-4-

occurred to these sheets, the fabricator is also liable because sheets were put up  by him.  

6 . Furthermore, Geo Roof sheets are high quality products and  many requirements come from the public.   Also, there was no complaints about these products till now.  Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation from opposite party.

7 . This opposite party has purchased the coils needed to make these sheets from the institution named as Asian Colour Coated ISPAT Ltd., Khopoli, Mumbai – Pune.  Thus, opposite party has been manufacturing these sheets by using such coil purchased from the said institution.  The quality of the sheets are based on such coil, therefore, Asia Colour Coated ISPAT Ltd., has responsibility to settle the complaints about the roofing sheets.  Hence, they are the necessary party in this complaint.  Fabricator is also a necessary party. 

8 . Now, opposite party has changed their partnership and it is incorporated as a Private Ltd Company.  Hence, M/s George Infra Private Ltd., Kuttanelloor, Thrissur has right to engage in all litigation against the opposite party.  Therefore, complaint may be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.

 Thereafter, this case was posted for evidence.  But, neither complainant nor his counsel was present on the posting dates of evidence.  Hence, documents produced by complainant were marked as Exts.P1 to P7 and Ext.C1.  Since there was no oral evidence adduced by complainant, opposite party’s counsel has submitted that they are not tendering any evidence.  Hence evidence closed and it was taken for orders.  Now the points which arise for consideration are:-

(Cont....5)

 

-5-

1 . Whether this complaint has lack of non joinder of necessary party?

2 . Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3 . If so, what reliefs the complainant is entitled for?

Point No.1

We have perused the marked documents.  As per Ext.P2, it is found that opposite party is George & Company, Vengalloor, Thodupuzha, Idukki District and they have issued the tax invoice which is under the description of Geo Roof Sheets to complainant.  Moreover, it is not seen that these Geo Roof Sheets were manufactured by which company.  The contention of opposite party that Asian Colour Coated ISPAT Ltd., Khopoli, Mumbai – Pune is the necessary party in this complaint, because they have sold the coils needed to making these roofing sheets to opposite party.  But, it is not evident that to prove the above said contention.  Hence Asian Colour Coated ISPAT Ltd., need not be a necessary party in this complaint.  Another contention of opposite party that they have changed their partnership and now it is incorporated as a private Ltd., Company which is named M/s George Infra Private Ltd., Kuttanelloor, Thrisur.  But, it cannot be considered.  Because, there is no evidence to show that in which date they are incorporated as the same as above.  No documents produced to prove their incorporation as a Private Ltd., Company.  Here, Ext.P2 ie, tax invoice has issued by George & Company.  Hence, M/s George  Infra Private Ltd., Kuttanelloor, Thrisur cannot be considered as a necessary party in this complaint.  It is another contention of opposite party that the fabricator is also a necessary party in this complaint.  The roof works of complainant’s house and cow farm were

(Cont....6)

 

-6-

done by using the alleged sheets by a fabricator is not stated in this complaint.  Commonly, a fabricator does such type of roof works.  In this case, it is not stated in complaint that the roof works of complainant’s home and cow farm were done by a fabricator with carefully and perfectly.  Sheets should be perfectly put on the roof of complainant’s house and cow farm by a fabricator.  In this case, it is not clear whether sheets were put  by a fabricator or not.  Therefore, there is possibility that these roofing sheets may be damaged by the work of unskilled person.  The said person ought to have been examined by complainant.  No steps were taken.  However fabricator or person who laid the sheets is not a necessary party as contended in written version.  Complaint is not bad for non-joinder.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point Nos.2 and 3 are considered together.

Complainant has not tendered oral evidence, though sufficient opportunity was granted.  Documents  produced along with complaint were marked as Exts.P1 to P7.  Commission report was marked as C1.  No evidence was tendered by opposite party. We have perused the exhibits and complaint.  Ext.P1 and Ext.P7 are warranty card dated 05/12/2017 and 25/11/2017 respectively.  These are given from opposite party wherein, the seal of them are seen and bill numbers are mentioned in it.  It is proved that complainant has purchased the alleged Geo Roof Sheets from opposite party under Ext.P2 ie, Tax Invoice issued from opposite party.  A lawyer notice was issued to opposite party on 12/03/2021 with demanding the replacement of these defective Geo Roof Sheets.  This lawyer notice was marked as Ext.P3.  Opposite party has replied to the lawyer notice.  Ext.P6 is the reply notice dated 03/04/2021 from opposite party.  As per Ext.P6, it is

(Cont....7)

 

-7-

seen that opposite party has clearly admitted the purchase of these Geo Roof Sheets and invoice which were mentioned in Ext.P3 lawyer notice.  Complainant alleges that the purchased sheets from opposite party were defective and they didn’t replace it to him.  Complainant has taken a Commission to prove the defect of these roof sheets, Ext.C1 report was marked.  We have perused C1 report.  Commissioner has reported that rusting of sheets and big holes in these sheets are seen, however it is not proved that the said sheets were put on the roofs by a skilled fabricator as per the installation directions.   For proving the quality of the sheets, complainant has not taken any steps for analysing the composition and quality of sheets.  Moreover, the fabricator who has done the roof works was not examined as witness to prove the said roofing works were done with proper care and as per the installation instructions.  Complainant has not adduced oral evidence to prove the allegations of his complaint.  No evidence adduced to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.

Parties shall take back extra copies without delay.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 27^th  day of July 2023.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                              Sd/-                                                              

                                                                         SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                                                                              Sd/- 

                                                                   SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                                               

                                                                           SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

(Cont....8)

 

-8-

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1  -  Warranty Card

Ext.P2  -  Copy of Tax Invoice dated 05/12/2017

Ext.P3  -  Notice issued to George & Company from advocate

                dated 12/03/2021.

Ext.P4  -  Postal receipt

Ext.P5  - Acknowledgement Card.

Ext.P6  - Reply notice  dated 03/04/2021.

Ext.P7  -  Warranty Card

Ext.C1 -  Commission report .

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

                                                                                                   Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR