SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the OP’s to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part .
The brief of the complaint:
The complainant is working as a painter and he is doing the work for his livelihood. On 4/5/2017 the complainant had purchased 5 litres of thinner filled in a 5 litre bottle and he paid for an amount of Rs.550/- to 1st OP . For doing his work he measured and understand that it contains only below 4 litres of thinner in the bottle. But the OP’s inserted the weight of thinner noted in the bottle cover is 5 litre quantity. Then the complainant informed the matter to 1st OP. But 1st OP stated that he is only the dealer of the product and OPs 2&3 are the distributor and manufacturer of the product. Then the complainant informed the matter to OPs 2&3 also. But they are not ready to cure the defects of quantity. So the act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to all OPs. 2nd OP entered before the commission and filed his written version . OPs 1&3 received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed the version. So OPs1&3 called absent and set exparte. 2nd OP contended that the thinner product purchased by complainant is manufactured by 3rd OP. The product is tight sealed bottles of different capacities in boxes. This 2nd OP forwards the same to various dealers/distributors upon order so placed. The bottles of different capacities as aforesaid are packed in different boxes and are forwarded to dealers with seal intact. 2nd OP contended that different containers are verified by weight and seal at the time of taking delivery and also at the time of forwarding to dealers. The dealers are also verify and ascertain the goods forwarded by seal and weight, on delivery at their site. The sale done by 1st OP to complainant are not within the direct knowledge of the 2nd OP. Moreover 2nd OP submitted that the product like thinner being a petroleum related product cannot be subjected to open direct weather for a long period. So reduction or shortage after a lengthy period would be easily noticeable. At any rate of purchase of less quantity of thinner sold in a transparent bottle it is for suspicion also. So the 2nd OP is not liable for any of the claim raised in the complaint. So the liability of 2nd OP is dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence on merit consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. A1 and MOs 1& 2 were marked on his part . No oral evidence from the side of OP’s.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. The document Exts.A1 and MOs 1&2 marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant, Ext.A1 is the cash bill for 5 litre thinner for Rs.550/-. In MO1 is the used thinner bottle and MO2 is the unused thinner bottle. The complainant had purchased the thinner bottle on 4/5/2017. He had purchased the bottle of thinner for 5 litter quantity but the OP’s delivered the bottle of thinner only contains below 4 litter quantity. The 1st OP received Rs.550/- from the complainant for 5 liter of thinner. But the complainant measured other company’s thinner in the bottle and confirmed that only contain 4 litter of thinner in this bottle. But the OPs are not to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Except the version of 2nd OP no evidence and documents produced from the side of OP’s to prove their defence. As per Ext.A1 and MOs 1&2 clearly shows that the OP’s doing the business contains unfair trade practice. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue Nos.2&3:
As discussed above the complainant had purchased 5 litter of thinner bottle from 1st OP on 4/5/2017 and he paid Rs.550/- to 1st OP. Then at the time of using the thinner he measured the thinner and confirmed that the bottle of thinner contains only below 4 litter of quantity of the thinner filled in the bottle. So we hold that the opposite parties are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. It is an evident before the commission that the complainant has produced MOs 1&2. It is clear that the quantity inserted in the bottle is 5 liter. But the weight contains only below 4 liter. So there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs. 10,000/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Cash bill
MO1- Used thinner bottle
MO2- Thinner bottle
PW1-Muhammed Fayas-complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
