IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.05/2022 (Filed on 11/01/2022)
Complainant : Sunish Kumar S/o Thankappan,
Chethukunnel House,
Elanji P.O,
Ernakulam District,
Pin - 686 665.
(By Adv: K.A.Bijoy) Vs.
Opposite party : Babu,
Proprietor,
M/s. Aswin Traders,
Peruva P.O,
Kottayam – 686 610.
Represented by the Branch Manager (By Adv: S. Prem Anand)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Crux of complaint is as follows:
To purchase articles for laying tress work at the courtyard attached to the kitchen of the house of the complainant he visited the shop of the opposite party who is carrying out the business of the tress work materials under the name and style of M/s.Aswin Traders at Peruva. The opposite party made to believe the complainant that the roofing sheets branded as JSW is a new brand and of good quality, rust resistant and having long durability. Believing the assurance of the opposite party on 23-05-2019 complainant had purchased Trafford sheets and other materials from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.23,430/-. The tress work was done immediately before starting the monsoon so the complainant spent an amount of Rs.8,000/- for that purpose.
During the last week of June 2019 almost all the roofing sheets were seen completely rusted and damaged. The sheets are of poor quality and out of standard. When the complainant approached the opposite party, he assured that he will do necessary arrangements to make a solution by replacing the rusted sheets as early as possible. But there was no response from the opposite party as assured. Thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 27-11-2019 demanding to replace the rusted roof sheets. On acceptance of notice the opposite party himself visited the tress work and convinced the complaints and agreed to replace the existing rusted sheets with new sheets at his own expense. In the month of January 2020 the opposite party with one worker came to the residence of the complainant and took some measurements. After the first wave of Covid 19 the complainant again contacted the opposite party and demanded to replace the roofing sheets as he was promised. But no response from him so far. According to the complainant the opposite party is bound to replace the rusted damaged and poor-quality roofing sheets at his own expense to the satisfaction of the complainant or to repay its price with laying charges. Due to the neglect of the opposite party in replacing the roofing sheets the complainant caused to suffer much inconvenience, hardships and mental agony. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to replace the rusted roofing sheets with standard and good quality roofing sheets at the expense of the opposite party or to direct to repay Rs.23,430/- being the cost of the materials and the laying charges with interest and to further direct to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this litigation.
Upon notice from this Commission opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version contending as follows:
The complainant purchased the goods described in the third paragraph of the complaint from the opposite party’s shop. The opposite party does not know that the cost of doing the tress work before monsoon is Rs.8,000/-. It is also denied that the roofing sheets were rusted and damaged before June 2019 and were of inferior quality. It denies the allegation that when the opposite party was approached, the opposite party said that a solution would be worked out. The complainant has not approached the opposite party and the opposite party has not examined the tress work of the complainant. The opposite party has provided good quality sheets to the complainant. Complainant has falsely levelled allegations against the opposite party by carrying out tress work using inferior quality sheets without using the sheets purchased by the petitioner.
The complainant purchased JSW steel sheets manufactured by the Jindal company from the shop of the opposite party. If there is any kind of complaint about the sheets, the manufacturer should be included in the complaint as the manufacturer is liable to replace the sheets. Opposite party is only a dealer of quality products. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the complainant. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. No documentary or oral evidence on the part of the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points :
(1) Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point Nos.1 and 2 together.
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
The specific case of the complainant is that to procure materials for tress work in the courtyard adjoining the kitchen, the complainant visited the establishment of the opposite party, conducting business in tress work materials as M/s.Aswin Traders at Peruva. The opposite party convinced the complainant that the JSW branded roofing sheets were a new brand of high quality, rust resistance and long durability. Trusting the assurances given by the opposite party on 23-05-2019, the complainant purchased Trafford sheets and other materials for a total of Rs.23,430/- vide Exhibit A1 bill.
During the last week of June 2019, nearly all the roofing sheets were found severely rusted and damaged. These sheets were of poor quality and failed to meet standard specifications. Upon approaching the opposing party, assurances were made to replace the rusted sheets promptly. However, despite these assurances, there was no response or action taken by the opposite party as promised.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that they supplied the complainant with high-quality sheets. However, the complainant falsely accused the opposite party of using substandard sheets in the tress work, neglecting to utilize the sheets purchased from them. The complainant bought JSW steel sheets, manufactured by the Jindal company, from the opposite party shop. If there are any complaints about the sheets, the manufacturer should be included in the grievance, as they are responsible for replacing them. The opposing party solely operates as a dealer of quality products.
To prove his case the complainant applied for appointment of Expert Commissioner to ascertain the damages of the roofing sheets. Accordingly this Commission appointed Sunil Thankappan as Expert Commissioner in this case. Expert Commissioner in Ext.C1 reported that at the time of inspection, all the sheets have lost paint and rust has started to come off in the exposed areas. Based on 12 years of experience in the field of roofing sheet work, the Commissioner has reported that the damage has been caused due to the poor quality of the sheet. The Commissioner has reported that in the current situation, these sheets will be completely damaged within two years. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party has sold the roofing sheets which have not the quality and standard which was offered by him at the time of the purchase of the roofing sheets by the complainant.
A product seller under the 2019 Act is defined to mean any person who, in the course of business, imports, sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains, or otherwise is involved in placing such product for commercial purpose and includes (a) a manufacturer who is also a product seller; or (b) a service provider.
As per section 2(47)( i)( a) any false representation regarding that the goods are of a particular standard quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model for the purpose of promoting the sale amounts to unfair trade practice.
Herein case on hand the specific case of the complainant is that he had purchased the roofing sheets from the opposite party only on believing the assurance given by the opposite party that the roofing sheets are of good quality, rust resistant and having long durability. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice by making believe the complainant that the roofing sheets which were sold by him to the complainant are of good quality in fact they are not the same.
No doubt the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardships due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party for which the opposite party is liable to compensate. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that allowing a compensation of Rs.30,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
In the result we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of December, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the side of the Complainant :-
PW1 - Sunishkumar
Witness from the side of the Opposite Party :-
Nil
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Tax Invoice No.ASN1106/2019-20 dated 23/05/2019
For Rs.23,430/- issued by the opposite party
A2 - Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 25/11/2019 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party
A3 - Postal Receipt of Ext.A2 lawyer notice
A4 - Postal AD Card
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
