DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 422 of 9.11.2017

                                      Decided on:         9.3.2021

M/s New Deve Agro Works, Village Mangewal Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala through its authorized signatory Gurpreet Singh.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Radiant Profiles and Steet Pvt. Ltd. village Kumbran Tehsil Amloh, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its partner/authorized signatories.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.R.I.S.Majhail, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Sukhdeep Singh Sahni, counsel for OP.                            

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by M/s New Dev Agro  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Radiant Profiles and Steel Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act)

Facts of the complaint

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased PPGI sheet from the OP vide retail invoice dated 31.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,31,388/-  for laying the roof of his unit situated at Nabha. It is averred that the unit was the only source of his income and the sheets were purchased only for personal necessity.
3. It is further averred that after few days of the purchase of sheets, sheets started losing its colour and rust could be seen with naked eyes.Complainant immediately approached authorized signatory of the OP who agreed to change the same with new one but after few days flatly refused to do so. There is thus deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as they delivered defective sheets and caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,31,388/- alongwith interest @15% per annum; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of damage suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.22000/- as costs of litigation.

Reply/Written statement

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the PPGI sheets were purchased by the complainant for installation in his commercial unit/factory, hence this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased PPGI sheets vide invoice dated 31.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,31,388/-. It is submitted that the sheets were purchased for installation in the commercial unit. It is further submitted that the OP is dealing in rolling of colour coated coil and do not produce/manufacture any colour coated material itself. No warranty/guarantee of the sold material was ever given as every product has its own chemical property which has to be taken care by using it and maintenance is in hands of buyer. It is averred that the OP had supplied the good quality of material but the complainant did not handle the same with car as told to him and the complainant is not entitled to any refund. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6.  
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Vinod Kumar, Marketing Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
8.  
8. The OP has also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased PPGI sheet vide invoice dated 31.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,31,388/- for laying the roof of his unit situated at Nabha.The ld. counsel further argued that the sheets were not purchased for commercial activity and were purchased only for personal necessity and the unit is the only source of income.The ld. counsel further argued that at the time of purchasing the sheet the OP had assured that their firm is ISI certified. The ld. counsel further argued that surprisingly after few days of purchase, the sheets started losing its colour and rust could be seen. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant requested to change the sheets or to refund the amount.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that PPGI sheet was purchased by the complainant for installing in his commercial unit as admitted by the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that there was no defect in the sheet and the complainant paid the amount quite late. The ld. counsel further argued that the sheets were used for commercial, there was no defect in the sheets and the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove the case, Sh.Gurpreet Singh, authorized signatory has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is the authority letter,Ex.C2 is the invoice of Rs.2,31,388/-,Ex.C3 is the bank statement, Ex.C4 is the receipt of sheet,Ex.C5 quotation of roofings,Exs.C6 to C10 are the photographs of the sheets. From these photographs, it is clear that sheets have lost the colour and there are some cracks on the sheets also.
12. On the other hand, Sh.Vinbod Kumar, Marketing Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has  deposed that there is no defect in the sheets in question, Ex.OP1 is  return memo of Central Bank of India,Ex.OP3 is the letter written by the OP to the complainant,Ex.OP4 is receipt Ex.OP5 is resolution.
13. Admittedly, in the present case the sheets were purchased for Rs.2,31,388/- on 31.12.2016.The case of the complainant is that the PPGI sheets  were purchased for laying the roof and were not purchased for any commercial activity and after some time the sheets were found to be defective one.The photographs in this case are the main evidence produced by the complainant and these photographs are Ex.C6 to C10.From all the photographs, it is clear that the sheets have deteriorated and have developed cracks and discoloured. No evidence in rebuttal has been lead by the OP to show that the sheets were in perfect condition. So it is clear that defective sheets were supplied to the complainant.
14. So due to our above discussion the complaint stands partly allowed and the OP is directed to change the sheets. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.3.2021         

                                              Y.S.Matta                      Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                               Member                               President