Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/302/2012

K.Gopalakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Roof(P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Murugan

20 Oct 2021

ORDER

                                                                Date of Complaint Filed    : 21.11.2012

                                                                Date of Reservation         : 13.10.2021

                                                                  Date of Order                  : 20.10.2021

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.              : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                     : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.302/2012

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                                 

K. Gopalakrishnan,

Proprietor,

M/s. Supreme Constructions,

Office at:-

National Highways,

Trichy Road,

(Opp. to Police Station),

Namakkal – 637 020.                                                     .. Complainant.                                                     

..Versus..

The Managing Director,

M/s. Metro Roof (P) Ltd.,

No.33, Chakrapani Street Extension,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

******

 

Counsel for the complainant         : M/s. R. Murugan

Counsel for the opposite party     : M/s. S. Murugappan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the complainant side having treated the written arguments of opposite party as his oral arguments, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

       The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,076/- being the excess amount collected towards the purchase of powder coating steel sheet along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for insufficient service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

        The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.   On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked.   The opposite party has submitted his proof affidavit and written arguments and on the side of the opposite party documents Ex.B1 is marked.

1. Complaint in brief:-

The complainant has purchased iron corrugated powder coating 0.65 mm steel sheet for civil contract work from the opposite party dated:30.06.2011 and 15.07.2011 respectively.  After purchase, the complainant has got doubt about the thickness of the steel sheet.  Hence, he sent a piece of steel sheet purchased from the opposite party Company to the Government Laboratory.   After inspection, a certificate was issued by the laboratory as that the steel sheet sold by the opposite party company are total coating thickness of 0.50 mm and some other sheets are 0.56 mm only.   Thus, the opposite party has sold 0.50 mm or 0.56 mm sheets only to the complainant, but the opposite party have received the amount from the complainant for the 0.65 mm sheets namely; Rs.451/- per sq. meter.  But the rate of 0.50 mm or 0.56 mm sheets are Rs.320/- only.  Thus, the opposite party have committed unfair trade practice and cheated a sum of Rs.1,33,076/-.  On 05.12.2010, the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party claiming the above amount.  But the opposite party requested the complainant to test the thickness of the steel sheet with their representative namely; Mr. M. Jeyaprabakaran.  Accordingly, the complainant tested the sheet in the presence of the said Mr. M. Jeyaprabakaran at the Government Laboratory, Salem and the Test Certificate dated:08.09.2011 stating that the thickness of the sheet is 0.50 mm only.  The complainant demanded the difference amount of Rs.1,33,076/- through notice dated:20.12.2011.  Even after receipt of the notice, the opposite party has neither sent any reply nor come forwards to settle the matter.  Hence, this complaint is filed.

2. Written version of opposite party in brief:-

The complainant purchased the steel sheets for commercial purpose.  Therefore, the complainant has not come under the purview of ‘Consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further, it is stated that the opposite party has purchased the said powder coating steel sheet from M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., assuring 0.65 mm of total thickness.  Therefore, it is stated that this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as against the complainant.  Further, it is stated that though the opposite party’s representative one Mr. M. Jeyaprabakaran was present, he was not allowed to ascertain the testing process and also, stated that the said coated steel sheets used in the test was not the one which were purchased by the complainant. The opposite party voluntarily approached the complainant to undertake a test in the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai mutually with the presence of both parties to test the accuracy of thickness.   But the complainant refused to take a proper test.  Hence, it is requested to dismiss the complaint. 

3. The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Act?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
4. To what relief, the complaint is entitled?

 

5. POINT NO.1:-

On perusal of records, it is found that there is no evidence to show that the complainant has purchased the steel sheets for commercial purposes.   On the other hand, the complainant himself stated that he has purchased the steel sheets for his civil contract work.  There is no evidence to prove whether he used the purchased steel sheets for the contract work.

 

Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:-

(d) “Consumer” means any person who –

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or …..

In this case, the complainant has not purchased the goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.   Therefore, we found that the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the act.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

6. POINT NO.2:-

It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased powder coating steel sheets of 0.65 mm thickness and it is revealed from Ex.A1.   The rate per sq. meter is also found in Ex.A1 as Rs.451/-.  The opposite party has not deny that the complainant did not purchased the powder coated steel sheets with a thickness of 0.65 mm and also, he has not deny the rate per sq. meter is Rs.451/-.  On doubt about the thickness of the steel sheets, the complainant voluntarily tested the thickness of the purchased steel sheets and found that the thickness varied from 0.50 mm to 0.56 mm.   The complainant issued notice to the opposite party stating that the difference in the thickness are quoted in the report given by the Government Laboratory, Salem and demanded the excess payment.  For that, the opposite party requested again to inspect the said steel sheets in the presence of his representative namely; Mr. M. Jeyaprabakaran.  Again, the purchased steel sheets were examined in the Government Laboratory, Salem and found that the thickness of the powder coating steel sheet is only 0.50 mm.  Therefore, it is found that the opposite party has sold the steel sheets with thickness of 0.50 mm stating as if the thickness is 0.65 mm.  The above act of the opposite party is nothing but unfair trade practice.  The other defense taken by the opposite party is that he used the steel sheets from M/s. Essar Steel Limited and were sold the same to the complainant.  Thereby, he has stated that if at all any difference in the thickness of the steel sheets, the deficiency in service is only on the part of M/s. Essar Steel Limited and not on the fault of the opposite party.  There is no proper evidence submitted by the opposite party to prove that he has sold the steel sheets to the complainant is that are purchased from M/s. Essar Steel Limited.  Further, the opposite party has not taken any steps to implead M/s. Essar Steel Limited as a party to this proceedings.  The other defense of the opposite party is that the steel was not tested in the Indian Institute of Technology as requested by him.  But no steps were taken by the opposite party to test the sheet in the Indian Institute of Technology. Considering the above facts we found that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice as against the complainant.  Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered.

POINT NOS.3 & 4:-

 

We have discussed and decided that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice as against the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to get back the excess payment of Rs.1,33,076/- which was paid by the opposite party as received from the complainant.  Apart from that, the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the act of unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party and also, he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused by the opposite party.  Apart from that, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Accordingly, point Nos.3 & 4 answered.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,076/- (Rupees One lakh thirty three thousand and seventy six only) towards the excess payment received from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) towards compensation for the act of unfair trade practice committed as against the complainant.  It is further directed the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amounts shall be payable by the opposite party within three months from the date of this order, failing which, the above accrued amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

      Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  20^th  day of October  2021.

 

 

 

T.VINODH KUMAR                                                            R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                                           

       MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

 

Ex.A1   28.05.2011       Copy of Proforma Invoice and bill of quantity issued 

                                   by the opposite party

Ex.A2   30.06.2011       Copy of Invoice No.705 given by the opposite party

Ex.A3   15.07.2011      Copy of Invoice No.705 given by the opposite party

Ex.A4   22.07.2011      Copy of Test Certificate issued by the Regional

                                  Testing Laboratory

Ex.A5    08.09.2011     Copy of Test Certificate issued by the Regional

                                  Testing Laboratory

Ex.A6    20.12.2011     Copy of legal notice

Ex.A7    22.12.2011     Original postal acknowledgement card signed by the

                                   opposite party

Ex.A8                            Copy of Invoice

Ex.A9    24.09.2011      Copy of letter sent by the complainant

Ex.A10  26.09.2011      Copy of courier receipt

* * * * * * * *

 

List of documents filed on the side of the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1              30.06.2011   Copy of the Proforma Invoice

Ex.B2(S)                              Copy of bills

 

 

T.VINODH KUMAR                                                 R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                       

      MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT