The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant purchased 156 Nos. AC sheets manufactured by the first respondent, from the 2^nd respondent at a cost of Rs.39,520/-. The AC sheets were bought for the construction of an auditorium within the temple premises by collecting funds from the devotees. After the completion of the construction by using these sheets for the roofing the complainant noticed seepage and wetness on the bottom portion of the roofing. The problem was brought to the notice of the 2^nd respondent. He inspected the roofing and found the problem genuine. The Area Sales Manager of the 2^nd respondent and a technical representative of the first respondent inspected the sheets and convinced the genuineness of the defects of the sheets. Since there was no positive response to the request to replace the sheets a lawyer notice was issued. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint.

 

            2. The counter is as follows: It is true that the complainant purchased the sheets for the temple. On receiving complaints regarding the wetness at the bottom of the sheets an inspection was made in the spot. The wetness was quite natural and these AC sheets are manufactured as per the conditions laid down in I.S.5913-1989. So there will find no manufacturing complaints. They are ready to carry out impermeable coating on the sheets and no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been committed by the respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondents?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4, Ext. C1 and Ext. R1 and also testimony of Commissioner.

 

            5. Points-1 & 2: The complainant purchased 156 Nos. AC sheets manufactured by the first respondent, from the 2^nd respondent at a cost of Rs.39,520/-. It was purchased to construct an auditorium within the temple premises by raising funds from the devotees. 

The roofing was made by using the sheet. But it was noticed seepage and wetness on the bottom portion of the roof. The matter was informed to the respondents. Inspection was made by the respondents and their representatives and found that the complaint was genuine. But the sheets were not replaced. The counter is that the phenomena of seeing wetness is natural and the sheets are manufactured as per the standards fixed for IS 5913-1989. They agreed to carry out impermeable coating on the sheets. The expert commissioner inspected the products and his report is marked as Ext. C1. In the report of the commissioner it has been confirmed that the AC sheets laid in the auditorium do not confirm the quality specification given by the Indian Standards as discoloration is seen on majority of sheets. So the defects and quality alleged are seen true. The Commissioner who was examined as CW1 affirmed on the finding of Ext. C1. So it is found that the AC sheets supplied by the respondents were of poor quality. The unfair trade practice committed by the respondents is proved and they are liable to compensate the complainant.

 

            6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount stated in Ext. P1 with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost to this litigation within one month.