Kerala

Idukki

CC/300/2016

Shameer M S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Indian Hardware's Stores - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Abdul Rahim

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :24/10/2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of December 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

 

CC NO. 300/2016

Between

Complainant : Shaheer M.S., S/o Saidu Muhammad,

Manakkandathil House,

Kudayathoor Kara, Thodupuzha Taluk.

(By Adv: E.Abdul Rahim)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Indian Hard Wares Stores,

Kanjiramattom Bypass Road Junction,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Haneefa Rawther P.H.)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased Poly Carb Sheet from the opposite party's shop on 15/03/16 for laying his sit out by paying Rs.16,970/-. Along with the sheet, he purchased aluminum beading for Rs.5,000/- from the same shop. The purpose of the laying of this sheet is to protect the wooden bench of the sit out. The complainant laid the sheet with the help of expert in this field and paid Rs.10,000/- lying charges.

 

While so, he noticed crack in the open side of the sheet within one month of its laying. Complainant intimated this matter to opposite party. But the opposite party returned him on some lame excuses. The complainant further stated that due to the crack in several parts of the sheet, the rain water flew down to the wooden bench and it caused damages in the polishing of the

(Cont....2)

 

-2-

 

wooden bench. Moreover the front side of the sit out totally damaged due to the fall of water through the cracked portion of the poly carbonates sheet. This caused due to the inferior quality of the material supplied by the opposite party. Even though the complainant approached opposite party for replacing the defective sheet, the opposite party has not took any effort to redress the grievance of the complainant. Under the above said circumstances the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version admitting the sale of poly carb sheet and denied that opposite party has not offered any warranty or guarantee in this sheets. Opposite party further contented that on getting information about the defect of the sheet from the complainant, opposite party intimated the matter to one Krishna Metals, Kochi, the supplier of this sheet. Thereafter the representatives of Krishna Metals visited the house of the complainant and convinced the defect. The poly cabon sheets having 800.740 supplied by the Krishna Metals to the opposite party sold by them to 13 other customers having no defects reported so far, except this complaint.

 

Opposite party further contented that, the complainant having no issues regarding the whole sheets laid by them. The defect caused to the sheet, due to its defective laying and this matter was intimated to the complainant. The poly carb sheets having one side UV coating and it is specifically stated the sheet itself that the method of laying. The person who is having no skill and knowledge laid the sheet, that is why this defects are caused. The opposite party further contented that the person who laid the sheet by using screws in the opposite side of the sheet against the condition for laying. The person laid the sheet without considering the guard side of the sheet. Hence the complainant is having no right to accuse the opposite party in this matter because the alleged defects are caused only due to the improper laying of the sheet by unskilled people in this field.

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

Opposite party further contented that complainant has not affected any damages due to the act of the opposite party and having no right to demand any compensation from the complainant.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit. Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 were marked. Ext.P1 is the retail invoice issued by the opposite party, Ext.P2 is the invoice dated 25/03/16 of one Mundackal Engineering works, Ext.P3 is a photograph.

 

From the opposite party side one Shajith Kumar, Marketing Manager of Krishna Metals, one Rejins M.A., Welding worker and opposite party were examined as DW1 to DW3. Ext.R1 is the method of installing poly carbonate roofs, downloaded from the concerned sole and commission report as marked as Ext.R1 and Ext.C1 respectively.

 

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both parties and had gone through records.

 

On reading the above case it is seen that, the sale of alleged poly carbon sheet and allied materials are sold by the opposite party to the complainant as per Ext.P1 invoice. As per the averments in the complaint these materials are purchased one Shaji brother of the complainant. Even though the complainant alleged that at the time of purchase of the alleged materials from the opposite party's shop, they offered warranty to the materials, no evidence is produced by the complainant to strengthen their version. If it is considered, it is offered to the purchaser of the product that is the brother of the complainant. He is not examined as a witness of confirm the offer of warranty.

 

(Cont....4)

-4-

On perusing the evidence on record including the Ext.C1 expert commission report, it is seen that the expert inspected the scene as per the direction of the Forum in the presence of the complainant and opposite party. As per the report expert found and reported that this sheet are fixed in a GI frame work. He found that instead of using pre-hole screws the person of who laid the sheet were used self drilling screws. More over the expert found that the screws which are used for filling was big ones than the hole which is drilled for screwing. This caused crack to the sheets. He further reported that UV sticker is not seen in the sheets and he cannot ascertain that whether the sheets are laid uniformly. He found some of the sheets are having cracks and some sheets having no damages.

 

Even though the complainant filed detailed objection to the expert report. No effort was taken to set aside this report and appoint another expert to find out the actual facts.

 

Hence having no other expert opinion and having no objection raised from the part of the complainant is marking this expert report, the Forum is in a position to consider the observation of the expert in Ext.C1 report.

 

On a continued reading of the expert commission report and the contention in the reply version Forum found that the alleged sheets are laid by unskilled labours without following the instruction of laying the sheets which is stated in the plastic coating of the sheets itself. Hence the opposite party cannot be blamed for the defective laying of the alleged sheets.

 

On perusing the deposition of the DW1 and DW3, none other than the Manager of Sreekrishna Metals and proprietor of opposite party, it is seen that at the time of intimation of the defect in the sheet, they are offered to replace the defective sheets to new ones, even though it was not a deficiency from their side but the complainant was not heeded to that offer.

 

On going through the entire evidence and deposition of witness in this case Forum is of a considered view that it is established that the defect was caused to the alleged sheets, are due to the improper handling of un experienced people and the opposite party is no way liable for that.

(Cont....5)

-5-

At the same time it is to be consider that in the initial stage of this issue opposite party offered to replace the defective sheets, it is only as a goodwill gesture, we think it was a good offer from the part of the opposite party, but the complainant rejected this offer and he taken up this issue to the Forum without considering the offer of the opposite party.

 

Under the above circumstances, Forum is of a considered view that, no relief which the complainant is sought is allowed, since there is no evidence is produced by the complainant to fasten the opposite party to any deficiency in service on their part. At the same time the Forum directed the opposite party to replace the defective sheets to a new one to the complainant as they offered earlier, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order to cost or compensation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of December, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont....6)

-6-

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 -Shaheer M.S.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Shajith Kumar

DW2 - Rejins M.A.

DW3 - Afsal Jamal

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The retail invoice issued by the opposite party

Ext.P2 - The invoice dated 25/03/16 of one Mundackal Engineering works

Ext.P3 - A photograph.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - The method of installing poly carbonate roofs downloaded from the

concerned sole

Ext.C1 - Commission report.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT