BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the  day of  27^th day of  October 2011                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Filed on :10/03/2010 

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

          Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                  Member

          Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No. 155/2010

       Between

C.K. Mahesan                                  :         Complainant

Chathamparambil house,                (By Adv. PV. Jyothi, Room ,

Thayikkattukara P.O.,                      1^st Floor, Edassery Building,

S.N. Puram, Aluva-6.                       Banerji road, Ernakulam.)

                                                And                                                  

 1. Manager                                      :         Opposite parties

     Bright Aluminum Industries,

     Puthiya road, N.H. Bye-pass,

     Kochi-25. 

2.  The Manager,                             (1^st OP By Adv. Rosy P.F. Pallath

     Hindalco Industries Ltd.,            House Puthiyaroad, Vennala P.O.,

     Alipuram, Kalamassaery,             Cochin-35)

     Ernakulam -683 104.

                                                            (Opp. Parties 2 to 4 absent)

3. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 39,

    GT road, Beloor Houdu 711 202,

    W. Bengal.

4. Venugopal Nair,

    The Territory Manager,

    Indalco Industries Ltd.,

    Alupuram P.X.No. 21,

    Kalamassery- 683 104.

(O.P. 3&4 impleaded as per order

in I.A. No. 547/2010 dt. 14/10/2010,

O.P2 impleaded as per order in

I.A.199/10 dt. 12/04/2010)

                                                O R D E R

A  Rajesh, President.

          The case of the complainant is as follows:

          On 21-09-2007 the complainant purchased aluminum sheets from the first opposite party at a price of Rs. 77,716/-.   After a year the inner side of the sheet getting rusted and corroded.  The complainant intimated the above aspect to the 1^st opposite party by letters dated 12-11-2009 and 17-12-2009.  But there was no response.   At the time of sale the 1^st opposite party assured that the sheets would not be corroded and are free from leak and so long lasting.  The complainant  availed a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from LIC Housing Finance to carry out the truss work.  He had to spend a total sum of Rs. 2.25 lakh.  He has been remitting the instalments  @ Rs. 3,145/- per month.  Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to replace the defective sheets together with  other incidental expenses.  This complaint hence.

          2. Version of the 1^st opposite party.

           The 1^st opposite party is only the dealer of the aluminum sheets.  The aluminum sheets purchased by the complainant  was manufactured by Everlast Hindalco company.  The manufacturer is not a party to the proceedings. The  1^st opposite party has not made any assurance or advertisement with regard to the quality and durability of the sheets manufactured by Everlast Hindalco company.  The 1^st opposite party is neither liable to replace the sheets nor refund its price.

          3. Despite service of notice from this forum the 2^nd,  3^rd    and 4^th opposite parties have opted  not to appear  for their own reasons.  The complainant and the expert commissioner was examined as PWs1  and 2. respectively.  Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The report of the expert commissioner was marked as Ext. C1.  Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st opposite party.  Heard the counsel for the parties.

          4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the aluminum  sheets together with incidental expenses?

          5. Admittedly on 21-09-2007 the complainant purchased aluminum sheets from the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 77,716/- evident from Ext. A1 retail invoice.  According to the 1^st opposite party the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the manufacturers of the  product in question.   It is contended  by the 1^st opposite party that if at all any manufacturing defect is there in the sheets the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are responsible for the same  in variably.

          6.  During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant an expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum.  He was examined as PW2 and his report was marked as Ext. C1.  Ext. C1 reads as follows:

          “   I am here submitting my observations which are notice at the time of inspection for the consideration of the forum.

1.    Dis-colouration and black spots observed all over the sheet.  Small pits are found on the spots.  Dis-colouration and pits are formed due to corrosion.

2.    These pits may be developed in future and will reduce the sheets life.

3.    The Aluminum roofing sheets used having the “Everlast” logo.

4.    Total of 2200 Sq.ft of the aluminum sheet was found to be fixed on top of the building.   Apart from that  few of the sheet were stacked on the ground.  Both were taken to my inspection.”

          7. The 1^st opposite party raised an objection against the findings of the expert stating that he has not adopted any scientific tests to come to a conclusion that the sheets suffer from manufacturing defect.  PW2 deposed that corrosion can be caused due to the impurities in aluminum during manufacturing process.  He further opinioned that black spots are seen  in the sheets used for truss work and the scrap remaining at the scene.  PW2 the expert commissioner has methodically apprised the defects of the aluminum sheets which has not been controverted.  

          8. Necessarily, the manufacturer, alone  did not the dealer  is liable for the manufacturing defect of the sheets, in this case the opposite parties 2 and 3.  In the above circumstances opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to replace the defective aluminum sheets with new lots as  claimed  by the complainant with compensation and cost.  Though the complainant contended  that he had to expend   a total sum of Rs. 2.25 lakhs to complete the truss work, he has not filed any proof for evidence for the same.

          9. The claim for incidental expenses have been met squarely.  It is pertinent to note that the consumer firmly  believing that his claim is genuine has not called for compensation or costs but only for a redress.  Here is a case this Forum finds that a company of such repute  as Everest Hindalco failed unnecessarily primarly to satisfy one of their numerous customers.  The dictum that “consumer is king” and anything against him has necessarily to be compensated.  In this case the dictum justice before mercy has been upheld.  However though not in precaution a cost of Rs. 1,000/- awarded. 

10. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:

i.                    The opposite parties 2 and 3 shall replace the aluminum   

                   sheets purchased by the complainant as per Ext. A1 bill

                   according to the choice and specification of the

                   complainant the extra costs if any to be met by him.

     ii.      The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall dismantle and           

              remove the  truss work at their cost and reassemble the  

              same at their cost as ordered above.

iii.                 The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the

           complainant being the costs of proceedings.

The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month   from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of  October 2011.