IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA 

Saturday,   the 30th     day of December, 2017

Filed on 07.01.2017.

Present

    

1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member) 

in

CC/No.159/2015

 Between

Complainant: Opposite parties:

 

Sri. Joyappan             The Proprietor

S/o Varghesekunjariya Malisseril Agencies

Kaadathukulam Near Railway Station,

Pachamuri, Chekkidikadu.P.O Thakazhy

Edathuva (Adv. Supramodam)

(Adv. Sundarsanakumar)  

 

 

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is as follows:-

Complainant purchased 7 No’s of  .35x4568x1100 Galco Troughed Blue Roofing Sheet from the opposite party on 21/5/15.  Opposite party delivered it to the house of the complainant by transporting it in a Goods Autorikshaw.  Complainant appointed employees to put the sheet on the roof of his house ad they came to see that the thickness of the sheet is .30mm instead of .35mm.   Complainant informed it to the opposite party, but opposite party insulted him by using abusive words. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.  

2.Version of the opposite party is as follows:-

On 21/5/15 complainant reached the shop of the opposite party and selected the sheet with full knowledge and he himself arranged a vehicle for transporting it to his house. The complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  

3. Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1.  Opposite party was examined as RW1.  2 witness were examined as RW2 and RW3.   The documents produced marked as Ext.B1 to B3.  Ext.B1 and B2 marked subject to objection.

4. Points for consideration are:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2)  If so the reliefs and costs? 

5.  It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased 7 sheets  from the opposite party on 21/5/15.  According to the complainant  he purchased 7 No’s  of  .35x4260x1100 Galco Troughed Blue Roofing Sheets  from opposite party.  Inorder to substantiate this allegation complainant produced a bill dated 21/5/15 and it marked as Ext.A1.  On verifying Ext.A1 we came to see that complainant purchased the sheet of  .35x4268x1100 Galco Troughed Blue type for Rs. 8532/-.  along with Sankar Cement for Rs. 420/-.  According to the complainant instead of .35 thickness of the sheet he noted .30 thickness on the sheet supplied by the opposite party.  Inorder to prove the said allegation an expert was appointed at the instance of the complainant and the expert commission report produced   marked as Ext.C1.  In Ext.C1 report   the expert noted that .................................... INDALIUM COLOR COATED GALUVALUME SHEET THK 0.30MM  ................................Even though  opposite party filed objection to the commission report no steps taken to set aside the report.  According to the opposite party the complainant himself arranged the vehicle for transporting the sheet to his house.  In order to prove that, the driver of the Goods Auto was examined as the witness of opposite party.  While cross examing him he admitted that he is the brother of opposite party. Hence he is an interesting witness and we cannot rely his deposition.  Allegation of the complainant is that opposite party Supplied .30mm roof sheet insisted of .35mm sheet which he required.  The complainant paid amount for sheet of .35mm thickness.   The expert report also shows that opposite party supplied .30mm sheets to opposite party.  Opposite party has   no case that he has not supplied  sheets to the complainant. Hence it has come out in evidence that opposite party committed unfair trade practice by supplying .30mm sheets instead of .35mm sheet after having received the value for .35mm sheets as evidenced by the bill.  This Forum is duty bound to discourage this kind of unfair trade practice by taking it serious so as to discourage such incidents in future, by imposing huge amount as compensation.  However this Forum , limiting the compensation to the tune of  Rs. 10,000/-.

In the result the complaint allowed . Opposite party is directed to give Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only) to the complainant towards  compensation and Rs. 2000(Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost.  The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the purchase of this order. 

  Dictated  to  the   Confidential   Assistant   transcribed   by   him   corrected  by  me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th    day of December, 2017.

 

                                                               Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :

          Sd/-Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)      :

           Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            :

 

 

Appendix:- 

PW1 - Joyappan (witness) 

Ext.A1 - Retail Invoice dtd. 21-5-2015

Ext.C1 - Commission report.

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  

RW1 - Benny Ouseph(Witness)

RW2 - Binoj.O (Witness)

RW3 - Sandeep(Witness)

Ext.B1 - Driving Licence

Ext.B2 - RC Book

Ext.B3 - Copy of Muster Roll.

 

 

// True Copy //                                By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:-br/-  

Compared by:-