THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC. No. 33/2009 Friday, the 19th day of February, 2010.
Petitioner : Binumon T.M Thoompil House, Kanakari P.O, Kottayam.
Opposite parties : 1) Hindalco Industries Ltd.,
Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Dr. Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai. Reptd. By its Manager.
Oriental Metals,
Chalikkamattam Junction Vyttila, Cochin Reptd. By its Manager.
Pullathil Steel Agencies,
M.C Road, Adichira, Kottayam Reptd. By its Manager.
O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member.
The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant purchased 185 kg. aluminum roofing sheets from the third opposite party on 17..5..2008 as per invoice bill No. 3420 on payment of Rs. 42,549/-. For renovating his residential building and to prevent leakage of its roof, the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the Indian Bank. As per the terms of the loan the construction has to be completed before March 2009. For completing the work soon, the complainant purchased the aluminum sheets. When the sheets were taken up for fixing it was found that the sheets were perforated, corroded and thus were not fit to -2- be used. The complainant alleged that he purchased the sheets believing the assurances and promises of the opposite party. The complainant further alleged that the sheets lacked quality which is expected from a new one. In spite of repeated demands the opposite parties did not replace the defective sheets or refund the purchase price. The complainant could not cover the roof with the sheets before rainy season so as to prevent the leakage. It also made it impossible to complete the construction of the building within the time schedule fixed by the bank. The cost of construction materials and labour charges also increased during the period. According to the complainant the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties caused undue hardship to him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the aluminum sheets with 18% interest and to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Notice was served to all the three opposite parties. Opposite party 1 & Opposite party 3 called absent and hence they were set exparte. Opposite party No. 2 entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. The allegation that the aluminum sheets supplied to the complainant was
perforated disfigured and corroded is denied. When the said sheets were supplied to the third opposite party no defects were noted by them and they accepted the same without any complaints. This opposite party had also accepted the goods from first opposite party without noting any defects. Hence the allegation that there is manufacturing defect on the same is denied. -3- If the sheets are stored in a position possible for water stagnation, water
gets stuck or happens to stagnate on any the metal sheet resulting in oxidation and if the contents of salt, dust or cement mixes with water oxidation will be aggravated. The complainant failed to comply the instructions stipulated by the dealer
in order to avoid damage and perforation to the sheets. The officials from the company who visited the storage place of the
complainant noticed that the complainant had taken least care for storing the same and the damage was caused only due to the omission on the part of the complainant. The complainant had purchased the goods in the month of May 2008.
Thereafter the allegation as to perforation was made only in the month of November, 2008 There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the
opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant as prayed for. Hence the second opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. Points for considerations are: Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? Relief and costs.
-4- Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A4 and Ext. B1 . . Point No. 1 The complainant produced the original bill vide No. 3420 Dtd: 17..5..2008 for Rs. 42,549/- and it is marked as Ext. A1. As per Ext. A1 the aluminum sheets are purchased from the third opposite party. The office copy of the advocate’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party is produced and marked as Ext. A2. The reply notice issued by the second opposite party to the complainant is marked as Ext. A4. In Ext. A4, the second opposite party alleged that the complainant had not abided the instructions stipulated on the reverse side of the bills issued and had stored the sheets carelessly. The second opposite party produced the original invoice Dtd: 1..4..2008 issued by them to the third opposite party and it is marked as Ext. B1. On the reverse side of the Ext. B1 bill some instructions are seen. The second opposite party contented that the complainant had not abided the instructions on the bill. But no such bill with instructions is seen given to the complainant. The bill produced by the second opposite party is the one issued by them to the third opposite party not to the complainant. The bill issued by the third opposite party to the complainant that is,. Ext. A1 does not contain any instructions on its reverse side. Forum appointed an advocate commissioner to conduct local inspection and to ascertain the nature and condition of 185 kg. of aluminium roofing sheets. The commission report filed on 18..9..2009 is marked as Ext. C1. As per the commission
-5- report the aluminum sheets were packed in plastic cover and were stored on the terrace The commissioner submitted that the sheets appeared corroded and useless. The quality, standard, purity and potency of every goods has to be tested on the anvil of word defect as provided by Section 2 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. According to this provision any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods, amounts to defect. The inference of aluminium sheets being defective can be drawn from the commission report marked as Ext. C1. The opposite parties alleged that the said damage occurred due to the storing of the aluminum sheets carelessly. But nothing is placed on record to prove that the complainant had stored the sheets with least care and thus caused the alleged damages. From the fats and circumstances we hold the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service as they have supplied aluminum sheets lacking the required quality. In our view the ends of justice would be adequately met by directing the opposite parties to refund the purchase price. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties will jointly and severally refund Rs. 42,549/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. The opposite parties will also pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant which includes the -6- expenses incurred for appointing an advocate commissioner. This order will be complied with within 30 days of receipt of its copy.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the complainant
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 17..5..2008 Ext. A2: Office copy of lawyers notice Dtd: 20..11..2008 Ext. A3: A/D card Ext. A3(a) A/D Card Ext. A3 (b) A/D Card Ext. A4: Reply notice Dtd: 11..12..2008
Report of the Commissioner is marked as Ext. C1.
Document of the second opposite party:
Ext. B1: The original invoice issued by the second opposite party to the Third opposite party.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
amp/6cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
