D.O.F:10/11/2020
D.O.O:20/01/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.149/2020
Dated this, the 20th day of January 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Rajesh.M.K
Mettumpurath veedu,
S/o Kunjukunj.M.K,
Kinnimgar P.O : Complainant
Mulleria Via,
Kasaragod - 671543
(Adv. Sreejith.K)
And
- M/s. B.Vasanthapai (HO) 2018-2019
Sree Lakshmi Narayana Complex,
Near Bus Stand, Badiyaduka,
Perdala P.O
Kasaragod
(Adv. Suresh.K.P): Opposite party
- The Manger
Sree Souparnika Tile Works Pvt Ltd,
Mullugudde P.O
Kovarady
Kundapura Taluk,
Uduppi- 576211
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed for compensation from the opposite parties for their unfair trade practice by selling defective roof tiles.
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a total of 1650 roof tiles from the opposite party, out of which 450 were purchased in the name of work supervisor Mr. Soja. Some 1200 roof tiles were purchased as per invoice No. HO May/UR 46 on 20.05.2020 and as per invoice No.HO May/UR 69 on 23.05.2020. The other 450 roof tiles were purchased as per invoice No.HO May /UR 111 on 30.05.2020. Since the above tiles were of substandard and inferior quality, there was leakage of water during rain. Even though the matter was intimated to the opposite party and requested to take remedial action, not complied with. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- including Rs.37,950/- the price of 1650 roof tiles and Rs.1,80,000/-, being other material costs and labour charges of roof.
The notice issued to the opposite party duly served and they entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written version. As per the version of the opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The opposite party admit that the complainant purchased tiles as per No.HO May /UR 46 on 20.05.2020 and as per invoice No.HO May/UR 69 on 23.05.2020. But the other invoice No. HO May /UR 111 on 30.05.2020 is not issued to the complainant. The opposite party is only a dealer of the roof tiles. The manufacturer is not made party in this case and therefore it is bad for non joinder of necessary party. There is no merit in this case. The complaint is filed only to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and they are not liable to pay any amount and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Originally there was only one opposite party in this case. After the filing of version of the opposite party, the manufacturer of the tiles is impleaded as supplemental opposite party No.2, as per the order in IA No.104/2021 filed by the complainant.
The notice issued to the opposite Party No.2 was duly served but they remained absent and was set exparte.
An expert commission was appointed as per the order in the IA.105/2021, who filed its report after inspection of the subject matter roof tiles.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext C1. The document Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 20.05.2020, Ext.A2 is the Tax Invoice dated 23.05.2020, Ext.A3 is the Tax Invoice dated 30.05.2020, Ext.C1 is the Expert Commission Report. The PW1 was cross examined.
The opposite party did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties and documents in this case the following issues are framed for consideration in this case.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that the 1650 roof tiles sold to him by the opposite parties are of substandard, inferior quality and there was leakage of water during rain. Even though the matter was intimated to the opposite party and requested to take remedial action, not complied with. The complainant produced oral and documentary evidence to prove his case.
The Ext.C1, the Expert Commission Report shows that the tiles are of substandard quality. The expert commissioner states that he observed dampness, water oozing during rain, which is due to insufficient baking of the tiles in the factory. Also width of the groove in overlap provided for interlocking of tiles is more than required for tight positioning of tiles, which leads to leaking of rain water at joints. The commissioner also states that in his opinion the tile are of inferior quality. Even though the opposite party No.2 filed objection to the Ext.C1 report they could not disprove the findings of the commissioner by adducing reliable evidence.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of the view that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the complainant suffered several hard ships and loss. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for that.
The prayer of the complainant is for directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- including Rs.37,950/-, the price of 1650 roof tiles and Rs.1,80,000/-, being other material costs and labour charges of roof. This commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.37,950/-, being the price of 1650 roof tiles, with interest. He is also entitled for a reasonable amount towards compensation for mental agony and hardships. But the claim for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has no basis. The complainant could not prove such a huge loss by adducing reliable evidence. Considering all the loss and inconveniences consequent to the leakage of water during rain, this commission hold that an amount of Rs.20,000/- would be a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties are jointly and severally is directed to pay an amount of Rs.37,950/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 10.11.2020, the date of complaint till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Tax Invoice dated 20.05.2020
A2: Tax Invoice dated 23.05.2020
A3: Tax Invoice dated 30.05.2020
C1: Expert Commission Report
Witness Cross examined
Pw1: Rajesh.M.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
