The petitioner's case is as follows:

The petitioner booked 100 cubic feet M.Sand (paramanal) with opposite party. The opposite party supplied the above mentioned measure of disputed material using his own lorry for a price of Rs.1800/-. The petitioner alleged that 80% of the disputed material was parappodi'. The mason appointed by the petitioner for the construction of protection wall of the well, mixed 10 cubic feet of the said material with cement and opined that it is not suitable for the said construction. So the petitioner intimated the opposite party about the inferior quality of the material supplied and demanded replacement of the said material with original 'paramanal'. But the opposite party did not heed to his demands. Hence the petitioner filed this petition claiming good quality 'paramanal' and Rs.1500/- as compensation.

-2-

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.

(i) the allegation of the petitioner that 80% of the disputed material

is ”parappodi” is false.

2. Misand (paramanl) was purchased in 2006. Since the said material was exposed to rain for six months. It was crushed to powder.

So the opposite party prayed to dismiss the petition.

Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade

practice on the part of opposite party.

2. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties, commission report marked as exhibit C1.

Point No.1.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner bought the disputed material from the opposite party. In paragraph 3 of the version, the opposite party stated that the petitioner had bought 'paramanal' in 2006. He further stated that if 'paramanal' is kept unused for six months, then it will become powdered and useless. Whereas the opposite party in his affidavit averred that he is having the machinery for the production of 'crusher sand' only. He further averred that the material supplied to the petitioner was crusher sand. From the opposite party's affidavit it is clear that the material supplied

-3-

to the petitioner was 'crusher sand'.

As per the request of the petitioner for the appointment of an expert commissioner, forum appointed Mr.B.Ajayakumar, Asst.Geologist, Kottayam as the commissioner. The expert commissioner filed commission report on Ist July, 2008 with the following main points.

(i) Major portion of the material is composed of fine fragments, the overall material is poorly sorted and contains fragments of varying

shape and dimensions.

2. angular fragments with lakhs of fledspars and flakes of mica are also identified from the material and it is lacking scientifice treatment and therefore the disputed material characteristically differs from M.sand (paramanal).

3. M.sand is qualitalively processed, the grain size is almost identical.

4. The disputed material is the end product delivered during the crushing of rock for production of aggregates (metals). Hence the material is under the category crusher sand.

The above mentioned commission report is marked as exhibited C1. As per 'C1' the material supplied to the petitioner is not M sand but only crusher sand. The act of supplying crusher sand instead of M.sand after receiving Rs.1800/- as consideration is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. Point No.1.is found accordingly.

Point No.2.

In view of the findings in point No.1, the petition is allowed.

-4-

In the result the petition is ordered as follows:

The opposite party will refund Rs.1800/- to the petitioner. The opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs.3000/- to the petitioner as the cost of proceedings which includes the expenses incurred by the petitioner for the appointment of expert commission.

This order will be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order failing which the above mentioned amount would carry an interest of 9% p.a. From the date of order till the date of payment.

The petition is disposed of with the above mentioned directions.