IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 17th day of January, 2019
Filed on 05.02.2018
Present
- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.30/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Gopakumar 1. Nazar
Kannamkonnattu Veedu N.K.Steels
Vayalar.P.O Thuravoor.P.O
Cherthala Cherthala
Alappuzha-688532
2. Managing Director
A.V.Thomas & co Ltd
Nilamputhinjamugal Road
Kusumagiri P.O
Kakkanad
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT)
This is a case based on a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 10/1/2017 the complainant purchased Tinsheet from the 1st opposite party shop for the purpose of thatching his house on the next day of thatching sheet it was found that water was dripping from the roof. Complainant has informed the matter to the 1st opposite party thereupon the 1st opposite party made the complaint to believe that it was due to the change of weather and it may due to mist and not due to defect of the sheet but on verification the complainant understood that there is no such problems to the other houses thatched by the similar type of sheets. This fault was informed to the 1st opposite party and there upon the 1st opposite party made the complaint to believe that fault was informed to the 2nd opposite party company which is the manufacturer of the roofing sheet and they would visit the house building which was thatched with the sheets within 2 weeks. By awaiting the visit of the representative of the 2nd OP manufacturing company, the complainant stopped the other work of the house. After 2 weeks he rushed to the 1st Op shop and informed that nobody from the 2nd Op visited the house building thatched with the sheets. There upon the 1st Op given number of one Sali who is the in charge of the Alappuzha District of the 2nd OP and also directed to make a call to said Sali and there upon the executive of the 2nd opposite party will visit the house building and cure the defects. However no such person came over at the house building. Thereafter he informed the matter twice to the 1st Op and requested them to replaced the defective roofing sheet with a defect free sheet and waited for one month but invain . However the 1st op directed the complainant to replace the sheet by new sheets and company will pay the amount spent for the replacement. By believing the above words the complainant on 8/1/2018 replaced the defective sheet and thatched with the new sheets purchased by him but the opposite parties have not paid the amount spent for purchasing new sheets. Though he contacted the 2nd Op over the phone and demanded the amount they evaded by stating that the problem suffered by the complainant would not affect the 2nd Op and it was on the roof itself, the manufacturing company would have interfered and removed the same and as the sheets were removed the 2ndOp manufacturing company is not liable and 1st Op alone is liable. The complainant has incured expense of the substantial amount for purchasing, transporting and placing the sheets on its roof and similar expenses were met by him for replacing the defective sheets with new defect free sheets and he has also sustained mental agony apart from the financial loss and therefore the complaint prays to award Rs. 15,000/- as compensation.
2. Though notice was served on the 1st OP though he remained absent. The notice issued to the 2nd OP returned by stating unclaimed. However both Ops were neither turned up nor filed any version. Hence proceed with the case in the absence of OP 1and 2. Complainant originally filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.A1 and A2 documents. On perusal of records it is seen that the averments in the complaint and proof affidavit regarding the alleged loss is very vague. Therefore he have decided to examine the complainant and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 15/10/2018. The complainant has also produced one more document which marked is Ext.A3.
3. Heard the complaint and perused the records. In view of the unchallenged averments in the affidavit and deposition of PW1, when he was subsequently examined coupled with Ext.A1 and A2 documents, it is clear that the complainant initially purchased roofing sheet(TR Sheet) worth Rs. 6541 and 6572.86 and MS flat worth Rs. 6347.45 and thatched his house using those sheet. But within 2 and 3 days it is found that though sheets are defective and water was found dripping he informed the matter to the Ops to replace the same but in vain. However when the complainant insisted the 1st Op, he directed the complainant to remove the defective sheets and thatched the house with new sheets and he will make arrange to reimburse the expenses through the 2nd OP who manufactured the roofing sheets Purchased as per Ext.A1 bill. Though the complainant purchased new sheets from the shop of 1st OP by paying Rs. 7067.82, Rs. 6627.10 and Rs. 737.29 the none of the Ops have made reimbursement of the same to the complainant. In view of the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with ext.A3 receipt it is clear that the complainant removed the defective roofing sheets by spending Rs. 10,650/-. In view of the above materials on record it is clear that complainant has incurred an additional expenses of Rs. 30,311.37/-. It is also brought out in evidence that complainant apart from the financial loss has sustained mental agony due to the delay in completing with the construction work of the building and also due to the thatching of defective roofing sheets. In the circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- for the mental agony sustained by may due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
In the result complaint stands allowed, directing the opposite party No. 1and 2 to pay Rs.30,311.37/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
2. Opposite party 1 and 2 also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
3. Opposite party 1 and 2 are directed to comply with the above directions within 30 days from the date of getting a copy of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 45,311/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with cost Rs. 3000/- opposite party 1 and 2 jointly and severally and from their assets, by filing petition under section 25 and 27 of the consumer Protection Act.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 17th day of January, 2019.
Sd/- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Gopakumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Tax Invoice dtd 10/11/2017
Ext.A2 - Copy of Tax Invoice dtd. 6/01/2018
Ext.A3 - Bill dtd.10-01-2018
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
