By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant purchased Trafford GI colour sheet from the opposite party worth Rs.40,620/-and it was offered to have 15 years guarantee. The complainant purchased other additional articles also for the installation of roof sheet, which altogether the complainant spent Rs.1,49,220/-. The opposite party sales man introduced various types of roof sheets and the particular roof sheet which is introduced was having 15 years guarantee and also assured that in case of any defect to sheet, they are prepared to refund the price along with labor cost.
2. The complainant submitted that within one and half years of purchase itself there appeared small holes and scars over the roof sheets. Then the complainant contacted the opposite party over telephone and agreed to come and inspect the defects but the opposite party did not turn up. The complainant submit that he waited for the opposite party after availing leave, but the opposite party or the authorized person did not attend the complaint. No steps have been taken by the opposite party to redress the grievance of the complainant. The opposite party had assured that he will be coming after the corona pandemic season but so far not turn up. The complainant submits that due to the defective act of the opposite party the complainant was insulted in front of the workers. Thereafter the complainant tried to contact opposite party over phone but most of the occasion the opposite party did not attend the call and during some occasion he responded in harsh words. Ultimately the complainant caused notice through a lawyer on 11/02/2020 but the same returned as refused by the opposite party on 17/02/2020. The complainant further submitted that on 30/12/2017 the opposite party recovered the cost of the product including the tax but the same was not incorporated the bill. The complainant alleges the opposite party is cheating the government also. Hence, the complainant pray for the entire price of product and labor expenses as Rs.1,49,220/- and also the expenses to re- install the roof sheets as Rs.1,75,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party denied
the averments and allegations in the complaint.
4. The opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased Trafford GI colour sheet from High-tech roofing Wadkkanchery, Thrissur on 30/12/2017 worth Rs.40,620/-. The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party had given 15 years guarantee and also assurance of refund the price along with labor charge in case of any defect. The opposite party denied the averment that within one and half years there was small holes, defects to the sheets, the complainant was insulted in front of the public, the opposite party did not attend the call of complainant that he was teased by using harsh words, caused financial difficulties to the complainant that the notice was issued by the lawyer on 11/02/2020, it was sent back without receiving that the tax was not stated in the bill and thereby cheating the government etc. The opposite party issued invoice No. 30 which includes tax and the invoice is dated 30/12/2017. There is no any sort of act from the side of opposite party to defeat the complainant or the government. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as stated in the complaint. The opposite party has not given any guarantee and there is no any sort of manufacturing from the side of opposite party and so there is no question of issuing guarantee to the product. It is submitted that if at all any guarantee for the product is there, it is to be given by the manufacturer and the opposite party is not aware of the guarantee as stated in the complaint, hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint.
5. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The
documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is copy of unclaimed registered notice issued by Adv. Kabeer Karingattu to the opposite party. Ext. A2 is copy of invoice dated 30/12/2017 for Rs.40,620/-. No documents marked on the side of opposite party. The Commissioners report marked as Ext. C1.
6. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The opposite party filed argument note also. The following points arise for consideration-
- Whether there is unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party and defect to the product?
- Relief and cost?
7. The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased Trafford GI colour sheet from the opposite party and erected roof sheet. But the roof sheets became defective within one and half years. The complainant submitted that it was assured 15 years guarantee for the roofing sheet but within one and half years there were number of holes on the roofing sheets and thus he contacted the opposite party but they did not turn up. The complainant produced Ext. A1 documents to show that he caused lawyer notice against the opposite party on detecting the defect. But the opposite party did not receive the notice and so he was compelled to file this complaint. Ext. A2 shows that he purchased point 0.32 Trafford GI colour sheet grey worth Rs.40,174 and GI color sheet ridge grey 28 worth Rs.440/-. Ext. A2 reveals the total price paid by the complainant is Rs.40,620/-and the bill is issued on behalf of high tech roofing’s door No. 11/762F, Royex Tower, near Wadakanchery Busstanad, wadakkanchery P.o, Thirssur, Kerala. The invoice is dated 30/12/2017. So, it is established that the complainant purchased Trafford sheet gray and GI color ridge grey worth Rs.40,620/- from the opposite party. Ext. A1 shows that complainant made earnest effort by issuing notice to the opposite party to settle the issue. But the opposite party refused the notice. The complainant took out an advocate Commission to establish the defect to the product purchased from the opposite party. The Commissioner filed report which is marked as Ext. C1. The commissioner reported that he examined the defects caused to the sheets which are installed by complainant. The Commissioner reported that there are holes over the sheets as alleged by the complainant. So, it is evident that there is merit in the allegation of the complainant. The complainant produced Ext. A2 to show the price paid by complainant to the opposite party. The entire price paid as per Ext. A2 is only Rs.40,620/-. No document to show the other expenses incurred by the complainant as alleged in the complaint.
8. The opposite party contended that they are only the retailer and they never give guarantee for the products and if at all there is any guarantee, there will be guarantee card issued by the manufacturer. The product purchased by the complainant is an economical one and so it is without any guaranty. The opposite party contended in the argument note that the opposite party had provided address of the manufacturer and wholesaler to the complainant, but has not taken steps to make them party to the complaint and so the complaint is liable to dismiss for non-jointer of necessary party. Moreover, the opposite party had submitted a work memo before the advocate Commissioner, but the Commissioner has not cared to report as demanded by the opposite party. The opposite party had asked to produce photographs of the defective product by the Commissioner. But the commissioner did not report or produce photographs as demanded. It is further submitted that the complainant failed to establish the sheets shown to the Commissioner is purchased from the opposite party. No guaranty card was produced to show that there is any guaranty for the sheet.
9. The opposite party rightly contended that the complainant failed to produce document to show 15 years guaranty. But the opposite party admitted the purchase of product as per Ext. A1. Even without guaranty or warranty the opposite party is liable to sell quality product to the consumer. The opposite party is liable to redress the grievance of the consumer if he is aggrieved by the purchase of a defective product from the seller. The opposite party contended that the complainant did not made party the manufacturer. But the version of the opposite party did not furnish the details of the opposite party, to initiate a timely step to incorporate the manufacturer as party. The opposite party filed memo in a later stage revealing the address particulars of the manufacturer. So, it cannot be blamed the complainant for not taking steps to implead the manufacturer as party. The dealer is also responsible for defective goods.
10. The complainant submitted that he spent nearly 1,49,220/- rupees for installing the Trafford sheet but not produced document to show the expense except A2 document. It is also claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.1,75,000/- for the repair work, which amounts exorbitant claim. The Commission finds that the expert commissioner has reported some defects to the Trafford sheets for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled a reasonable amount to replace the defective Trafford sheets for which the opposite party is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- which includes cost of the Trafford sheets and the incidental labor costs. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
11. In the light of above facts and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows: -
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) towards the cost including labor expenses to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 21st day of July, 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2
Ext.A1: Unclaimed registered notice issued by Adv. Kabeer Karingattu to the opposite
party.
Ext.A2: Invoice dated 30/12/2017 for Rs.40,620/-.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Ext.C1: Commissioners report.
