Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/14/465

J shaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Modern Enterprisess - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN            : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

                                     SRI.VIJU.V.R                      : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.465/2014 (Filed on : 24/11/2014)

ORDER DATED : 11/10/2022

COMPLAINANT

J.Shaji,

Sha House, TC.42,583,

Muttathara, Vallakkadavu.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008

 

(Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Proprietor,

Modern Enterprises,

Marakkada Road, Chalai.P.O,

•  

 

2. Proprietor,

Deva Steel, Chakkara Paramb,

Vyttila- Byepass, Cochin – 32

(OPS 1 & 2 by Adv.V.Bahuleyan)

                               ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The case of the complainant in short is that on 23/06/2014 he along with his brother purchased poly carbon sheet from the first opposite party paying Rs.10,300/- for the purpose of constructing the roof of the car shed. The said purchase was made by the complainant for the purpose of construction of car shed at the premises of his neighbor and relative Mr.Biju. After construction, within a week, when the rainy season started there appeared seepage of water from the first layer of the sheet to the lower layer causing of clogging of water. As the same was due to the inferior quality of the poly carbon sheet supplied by the opposite party, the complainant immediately contacted the opposite party and informed the opposite party with regard to the complaints of the newly purchased poly carbon sheet. As suggested by the staff of the first opposite party the complainant removed the poly carbon sheet from the top of the car shed and brought the same to the first opposite party’s shop for replacing the same. But the opposite party no.1 was not ready to replace the sheet or refund the price of the sheet on the ground that they are only a dealer and they cannot do anything in this matter and further informed that they will inform the same to the agency which supplied the material to the first opposite party. At the time of purchase the complainant was made to believe that the product was an imported one having 10 years warranty and the agency was at Ernakulam. As the opposite party was not ready to replace the sheet or refund the amount, the complainant was forced to take back the sheet to the premise of Mr.Biju in a goods auto rickshaw. According to the complainant the opposite party has delivered an inferior quality material supplied by collecting an amount for a good quality material and the same amounts to deficiency in service. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this commission claiming compensation for the financial loss and mental agony sustained by him due to the act of the opposite parties.

3.       The opposite parties filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, there was no manufacturing defect for the product supplied to the complainant and the opposite party sold the original company product with warranty to the complainant. According to the opposite party the seepage of water was caused because of the error in fixing the same and not because of any manufacturing defect. Hence opposite party denied liability to compensate the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 series on the side of the complainant. Though the opposite party filed affidavit, no documents were produced in support of their contentions.

5.The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order as to cost.

6.                  Heard both sides. Perused records and documents. The opposite parties filed argument notes. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant’s brother sworn an affidavit as PW1 and was subjected to cross examination by the opposite parties. In support of the complainant’s case Exts.P1 to P5 were produced and marked from the side of the complainant. Ext.P1 is the invoice no.2098 for Rs.10,800/- issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ext.P1 invoice shows the name of the complainant. From Ext.P1 it is evident that the complainant has purchased poly carbon sheet from the opposite party by paying Rs.10,800/-.Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the complainant demanding compensation from the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the postal acknowledgement signed by the first opposite party. According to the complainant after accepting Ext.P2 notice the first opposite party not even cared to send a reply to the complainant. Ext.P4 is the photograph showing the warranty details and the product was made of 100% virgin material from Germany. Ext.P5 shows that the manufacturer of the product is “Green Nature”. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed an application for appointment of an expert commissioner to note and report the quality of the material purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. The said application was allowed and Dr.K.B.Radhakrishnan, M.Tech, P.HD (IIT Madras) and Professor and Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering, T.K.Engineering College, Kollam was appointed as the commissioner by this commission. The report submitted by the expert commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner in his report observed that use of good quality poly carbonate sheet for three years will not usually result in brittleness on exposure to the Kerala atmospheric conditions. Normally roofing sheets made of this material are not susceptible to deterioration in quality and they are tolerant to environmental conditions prevailing in Kerala. Further, exposure of three years is considered short a period considering the service life of good quality polycarbonate roofing products. The commissioner also observed that he could not find any latches in the fixing of the roofing sheets as standard procedure has been found to be employed for providing such sheets as is being follow elsewhere.

7.                  Though the opposite party denied any defect in the product supplied by them, they failed to adduce any proof to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. Mere denial of allegations raised by the complainant is not sufficient to discredit the case put forward by the complainant. The opposite party has not produced any contra evidence to challenge the evidence adduced by the complainant. By giving oral evidence as PW1 by the complainant’s brother, who was present along with the complainant on the date of purchase and by marking documents Exts.P1 to P5 and coupled with the observations made by the expert commissioner in Ext.C1 report, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. The complainant also succeeded in establishing that he has suffered financial loss as well as mental agony. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. As the financial loss and mental agony was caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.  

             In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.10,800/- to the complainant along with Rs.7500/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realisation / remittance . After complying the order the opposite parties can take back the polycarbonate sheet purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties.

          A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 11^th day of October 2022.

 

                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                              Sd/-

VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

                                                                                          

                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.465/2014

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - shibu

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Original invoice of Rs.10,800/- of carbon sheet from Modern Enterprises

Ext.P2                   - Copy of registered letter dated 23/10/2014

Ext.P3                   - Copy of acknowledgement card dated 25/10/2014

Ext.P4                   -  Photograph showing the warranty details

Ext.P5                   - Photographs showing the name of manufacturer

List of witness for the opposite parties

DW1                     - Peer Muhammed

Exhibits for the opposite parties        - NIL

Court Exhibits

Ext.C1                                     - Commission Report

 

 

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                              PRESIDENT