PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 13/07/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.370/2011
Between
Dayatmaji, : Complainant
S/o. Narayanan, (By Adv. Biju Abraham,
Mattathil house, Banerji road, Cochin-18)
Muhamma P.O.,
Alappuzha. And
1. M/s. Deva Steels, Door No. : Opposite parties
33/2480, Chakkara Parambu, (1st O.P. by Adv. S.R. Dayananda
N.H. Bye Pass, Prabhu, “Anjali” Veekshanam road,
Kochi-682 020. Ernakulam, Cochin-682 018)
2. M/s. J.S.W. Steels Ltd., (2nd O.P. absent)
Victoria House,
Pandooran Budkhar Marg,
Lower Parel, Bombay-400 013.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 15-09-2009 the complainant purchased 90 numbers of CC sheets and ancillary tools from the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 33,806/- for constructing roof of his coir factory. After almost a year the sheets had been corroded and rain water seeped into the
go down causing damage to the tune of Rs. 1lakh to the coir and products stored in the factory. Though the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to get his grievance redressed they turned a deaf ear. On 17-03-2011 the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the 1st opposite party they replied raising untenable contentions. The complainant had to spend Rs. 1,15,000/- for the reconstruction of the roof of the go down. The opposite parties are liable to pay the price of the sheets, to pay compensation for the value of the goods damaged and to pay the amount incurred by him to reconstruct the building. Hence this complaint.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party
The 1st opposite party sold 90 Jindal CC roofing sheets and its accessories to the complainant on 15-09-2009 worth Rs. 33,806/-. The sheets were manufactured by a reputed company Jindal-M/s. JSW, steels Ltd, Victoria house, Pandooran, Budhar Marg, Lower Parel, Bombay. The 1st opposite party purchased the sheets from M/s. Naman Steels a necessary party to the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs against the 1st opposite party.
3. The 2nd opposite party was served with a notice of this complaint, but they opted to remain absent during the proceedings for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. The witness for the 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 1st opposite party.
4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 2,48,806/- from the opposite parties or nor?
5. Ext. A1 tax invoice goes to show that the complainant purchased 90 numbers of CC Sheets and its accessories from the 1st opposite party at a total price of Rs. 33,806/- which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant he used the sheets for the roofing of his coir factory. It is stated that within a year of construction of the roofing they corroded resulting in leakage of the roof, thereby water seeping thus caused considerable damage to the coir and coir goods stored there. It is also stated that he had to reconstruct the roof by using asbestos sheets.
6. On the contrary the 1st opposite party contents that there is no expert evidence to prove that the sheets supplied by the 1st opposite party suffers from manufacturing defect not to prove the loss as claimed by the complainant.
7. Indisputably no expert opinion is on record to prove that the defects of the sheets were caused due to its inherent manufacturing defect. However Ext. A7 photographs with CD goes to show that the sheets manufactured by the 2nd opposite party got corroded and damaged within a year as indicated in Ext. A6 lawyer notice. Though the 1st opposite party objected the marking of Ext. A7 there is no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of the same especially when the complainant has produced CD along with the photographs. Moreover the primary contention of the 1st opposite party that there is no expert evidence to prove the defect of the sheets holds little water especially since the irresponsibility to establish the same on the opposite parties squarely alone. The absence of the manufacturer during the proceedings in this Forum is conspicuous especially when they received notice from this Forum. The maxium “res-ipsa loquitur” squarely applies in this case especially prima-facie one can easily identify the defect of the sheets from Ext. A7 photographs. Raising version and thereafter not substantiating the same cannot go to vitiate the vistas of law.
8. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the Jindal sheets from the 2nd opposite party with interest. However there is no evidence forthcoming from the complainant to prove the quantum of loss sustained by him especially though during evidence he loquaciously contended that he has got ample evidence to prove the same. Moreover he has not produced any evidence either to substantiate his claim that he has reconstructed the roof.
9. In the result, we partly allow this complaint and direct that the 2nd opposite party shall refund the price of the 90 numbers of the said Jindal CC sheets and its accessories to the complainant as per Ext. A1 with 12% interest p.a. from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective sheets to the 2nd opposite party simultaneously.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of cash credit
A2 : Retail invoice dt. 15/06/2011
A3 : A.D. card
A4 : Lawyer notice dt. 17-03-2011
A5 : Postal recipt
A6 : Reply notice dt. 01-04-2011
A7 : Photos
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Cash credit dt. 08-09-2009
B2 : Copy of authorization
dt. 29/02/2012
Depositions:
PW1 : M.N. Dayatmaji
DW1 : Manoj Kumar T.
