D.o.F:22/8/16

D.o.O:30/3/2017

                      IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  IDDUKKI

                                                                CC.NO.320/16

                                              Dated this, the  30^th    day of  March  2017

PRESENT:

SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR                  : PRESIDENT

SRI.BENNY.K.                            : MEMBER

Mathew Philip,

Vettikkad Estiate, Kailasanad Po,                          :  Complainant

Nedukandam

(Adv.K.M.Sanu)

1.Managing Director, Hitech Engineering  &

 Ecco Solutions(P) Ltd.                                                   :  Opposite parties

Edayar, Paravoor, Ernakulam.

2.Manager, Essar Steels, Kattappana Po.Idukki.

(Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR                  : PRESIDENT

       The complainant had purchased  91 roofing  sheets of different sizes from 1^st opposite party for the purpose of  renovation of  his house, at a price of  Rs.72,000/-.  1^st opposite party  had assured that the said sheets are rust free and suitable for the climate of  high ranges.  Rs.20,000/-  was  spent  as roofing charges .  The balance sheets for  roofing  were purchased from the 2^nd opposite party.  After 3 months of  laying rust began  to  form in the edges and later it began to  spread to all parts of the roof.  The tiles supplied  by 2^nd opposite party  have shown no defects till date.  The matter was reported to 1^st opposite party and  their representative had directly  confirmed  about the defects. But later opposite party never made  any positive steps or  reply to the requests of the complainant.  The roof  totally   rusted and colour of the tiles have faded.  Complainant is strongly believe that 1^st opposite party had  supplied  duplicate  materials. Complainant had to spent Rs.7000/- as transportation  cost  and a total of Rs.99,000/- was  expended.  It is an unfair  trade practice from  1^st opposite party  to make believe the complainant  that  tiles are  of  superior quality and long  durability.  Complainant is entitled to compensation for  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the opposite party.

   Inspite of the notices from the Forum  opposite parties are never turned up hence  made exparte.

3.    The point for consideration is whether there  is  any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and if so  for what  relief  the complainant is entitled to ?

4.   The evidence consist of  oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts.P1 & P2 marked on the side of the  complainant .  Opposite party set exparte.

5. The Point:    Complainant examined as PW1 .  As part of repair of his house,  complainant  had purchased  91 roofing sheets at Rs.72,000/- from 1^st opposite party, bills issued by opposite party marked as Ext.P1.  Since they are not  sufficient to  roof  about  3000 sq. feet roof,  complainant had purchased the balance roofing sheets of the same  company  from 2^nd opposite party.  But the sheets purchased  from  2^nd opposite party has shown no complaints or defect  till date. 1^st opposite party had assured that the said sheets are of  quality and rust free, which is most suitable to the climate of High Ranges.  But  after 3 months of laying, the said sheets  began to rust and later the  whole  roof found   rusting.  Photos of the rusty roof  marked as Ext.P2 series.  The representative of the  1^st  opposite party visited the place, but no  further enquires done by 1^st opposite party.  Complainant spent Rs.7,000/-  as transportation  cost.  Complainant had to spend at  total of Rs.99,000/-  for roofing the house.  It is a  total  unfair trade practice from 1^st opposite party to  supply  inferior quality roof tiles making  the  complainant  believe the  same is  most suitable to high ranges and has of long durability.  Ist opposite party is liable to give the amount  spent for roofing and  compensation for the deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice from their part.

   Opposite parties 1&2 never  appeared and  raised any contention or challenging the allegations of the complaint.  Complainant has spent a substantial  amount for repairing his roof and 1^st opposite party is turning a deaf ear to the requests of the complainant.  It is a serious deficiency in  service  and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties to  sell inferior quality  goods and  denying after sale service to the complainant.  Complainant has to undergo severe mental , financial and physical hardships due to the act of the opposite parties.

   Hence the petition  is allowed.  Ist opposite party is directed to pay Rs.99,000/- and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost  and compensation  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Failing which  the said amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till realization.

Pronounced in the open forum  on this  the  30^th       day of  March 2017  .

                                                                                                                     Sd/  

                                                                                                       SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR                : PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                      Sd/

                                                                                                      SRI.BENNY.K                            :MEMBER

Exts:

P1-Retail Invoice

P2-photographs

PW1-Mathew Philip-complainant

eva