BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 24/03/2011

Date of Order : 31/07/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 164/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the case leading to this complaint are :-

The complainant purchased 28 Traford Galume 0.30 x 24 ft. brick red colour G.1 sheets from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs. 44,782/- on 15-12-2010 for making roof cover. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party is the distributor of the sheets. But unfortunately, the worker employed for erecting the truss fell down and sustained hip injury. Hence the work was postponed. Thereafter, the complainant made arrangements to restart the work and while checking the sheets colour loss was noticed. On thorough scrutiny, rusting of the interior portion of several sheets were also detected. Immediately, the matter was brought to the notice of the 3^rd opposite party. The owner of the 3^rd opposite party shop inspected the sheets and was convinced of the colour loss of the sheets. But in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant, nothing further was done by him or the other opposite parties. The G.1 sheets supplied to the complainant is of sub-standard quality, hence colour loss and rusting occurred in the sheets within 2 to 3 months. Due to the said defects, the complainant is compelled to stop the roof covering work, thus his aim to reduce heat inside the house has been thwarted. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the sheets Rs. 44,782/- along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of purchase till realisation. He is also entitled for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the supply of inferior quality sheets. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows :-

The 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer of G.1 sheets manufactured and supplied by the 1^st opposite party. By the 3^rd week of March 2011, the 3^rd opposite party reported that the complainant had purchased 28 sheets from the 3^rd opposite party in December 2010 and by the middle of March 2011 he noticed rust and colour loss to the sheets. After inspection, it was reported by the 3^rd opposite party that the sheets were kept in the same position as it was unloaded on 15-12-2010 in the open yard which resulted in peeling off of the coated paint and rusting of the sheets. The alleged defects were caused only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

3. The 3^rd opposite party filed a separate version raising similar contentions that of the 2^nd opposite party.

4. In spite of receipt of notice of this complaint from this Forum, the 1^st opposite party did not respond to the same for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked on his side. The witness for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. The expert commissioner's report was marked as Ext. C1. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the G.1 sheets from the opposite parties with 15% interest?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant?

6. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- Ext. A1 tax invoice goes to show that on 15-12-2010, the complainant purchased 28 numbers of Traford Galume sheets at a price of Rs. 44,782.77 from the 3^rd opposite party. Admittedly, the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party is the distributor of the sheets. According to the complainant, the sheets supplied by the 3^rd opposite party and distributed to him by the 2^nd opposite party and manufactured by the 1^st opposite party suffer from manufacturing defects and he is entitled to get refund of its price. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties maintain that the complainant had kept the sheets in open yard exposing the same to rain and the sun and that might be the reason for the alleged defect of the sheets.

7. Both the complainant and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties stick to their respective contentions. During evidence, at the instance of the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed by this Forum, his report was marked as Ext. C1 without demur. The findings of the expert commissioner in Ext. C1 reads as follows :

“My report on the points raised to me is as follows :

1. It is not exactly color loss that has happened to the sheets. These are pre-painted sheets and this paint is of a different colour than the base galvanized steel. The paint has peeled off in several locations revealing the colour of the galvanized steel in these locations. This peeling off has been quite pervasive and has affected almost all the sheets. The reason for the peeling off of the paint has been the storage of the sheets in conditions not recommended by the manufacturer. The sheets exhibit rusting in several locations; but this is not so pervasive.

    

2. As pointed earlier this has affected almost all the 28 sheets.

    

3. The present condition of the sheets is as stated above. The sheets remain stacked there in his yard all of them exhibiting the bare galvanized steel in several locations. In addition the paint has got detached from the mother material even though the paint film remain in place but with water filling the inter space between the paint and the galvanized steel.”

8. In Ext. C1, it is categorically stated that as per Ext. A1 invoice, the complainant purchased 'Trafford Galume sheets' but the texture of the inspected sheets was 'pre-painted galvanized iron trafford sheets” which are of a different make. DW1, the witness for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties acceded to the same. So naturally what was supplied to the complainant in the guise of trafford galume sheets, they supplied 'pre-painted galvanized non-trafford sheets'. The said conduct of the 3^rd opposite party itself, amounts to unfair trade practice. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the reasons for the same.

9. It is worthwhile to note that none of the opposite parties have an opinion as to what would have been the state of affairs of the trusses had they been installed.

10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall refund the price of the sheets with 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. In that event, the complainant shall return the defective sheets to the opposite parties simultaneously which they shall collect at their costs. No order as to compensation.

The 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 31^st day of July 2012

Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========