IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 21st day of November, 2009. Present : Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 98/09 Between: K.M. Wilson, Kuzhimuriyil Veedu, Mathoor P.O., Thumpamon Earam Muri, Chenneerkara Village. (By Adv. S. Manoj) .... Complainant. And: Venchempil Bricks (V.B. Bricks), represented by Senkumar, Venchembil Veedu, Karimpinpuzha P.O., Velanmoozhi, Pangodu, Pavithreswaram Village, Kottarakara Taluk. .... Opposite party. ORDER Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased 20000 bricks at the rate of Rs.4-50 per brick from the opposite party. Accordingly, the opposite party supplied the said bricks and received Rs.90,000/- from the complainant on 28.03.2009. The said bricks were purchased for complainant’s brother’s house construction. The proposed house construction was fully entrusted to the complainant by his brother. 3. The complainant purchased the bricks with the intention to start the house construction on June 2009. But on noticing the bricks, it is seen that the same was a lower quality and on examination found that it is crumble in nature. On further examination by the proposed house construction Engineer and mason found that the bricks are not useful for construction. The pathetic condition of bricks was informed to the opposite party on 31.05.2009. He was also informed to taken back the bricks and refund the price. Though several intimation has given the opposite party does not turned up. At last, complainant was lodged to Ezhukone Police Circle Inspector on 10.06.2009. The police investigated it by examining the condition of bricks. The police directed the opposite party to refund the price and taken back the supplied bricks. On 27.06.2009 the opposite party returned an amount of Rs.40,000/- and taken back 5000 bricks. 4. Though the construction of house is an inevitable necessity and the supplied bricks are not useful for construction, complainant forced to purchase 18000 bricks from Eskay Industries by paying Rs.5-15 per bricks. He has forced to pay higher price i.e. Rs.5-15 per bricks. The total excess amount as a result of the rise in price of bricks was Rs.11,700/-. He was in need of 25000 bricks, but due to the rise in price, he was financially unable to purchase more than 18000 bricks. 5. As a result of the purchase of lower quality birkcs from the opposite party, complainant could not start the construction of house within the planned time. He also has to suffer untold misseries, pain and sufferings. The opposite party’s supply of not useful, crumbled and less quality bricks is a clear deficiency of service. Hence this complaint. 6. The opposite party has not turned up. Hence they were declared as exparte. 7. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 8. The evidence of this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents produced by him have been marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Exts. C1 and C2 are also marked. After the closure of evidence, the complainant was heard. 9. Points 1 to 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, he filed proof affidavit along with certain documents and is marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the copy of complaint lodged by the complainant before the Ezhukone Police Circle Inspector. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by Sunilkumar, driver of the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by Gangadhara Kurup, owner of Eskay Industries. Exts.C1 and C2 are the mahazar and report of the Advocate Commissioner with regard to the condition of bricks. 10. The opposite party has not turned up and hence there is no oral or documentary evidence in their favour. Hence complainant’s case is proved unchallenged. 11. On a perusal of materials on record, it is learnt that the complainant has purchased 20000 bricks at the rate of Rs.4-50 per bricks. The total amount he paid as price is Rs.90,000/-. The low quality and not useful for construction, the complainant has not used the bricks. Ext.A2 shows that the opposite party returned Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and also taken back 5000 bricks. Ext.A3 shows that complainant had paid an additional sum of Rs.11,700/- due to hike in price of bricks to Eskay Industries. All the inconvenience, loss, pain and sufferings are due to the opposite party’s supply of lower quality of bricks. Therefore, it compelled him to purchase at a higher rate i.e. Rs.5.15 per bricks and paid an additional sum of Rs.11,700/-. 12. It is pertinent to note that Exts.C1 and C2 shows the real fact in which bricks are of low quality and cannot be useful for construction purpose. Therefore, supplying lower quality of bricks by opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. Hence, opposite party is liable to return the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- and the price variation amount of Rs.11,700/- with compensation and cost. 13. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to return the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)together with the price variation amount of Rs.11,700/- (Rupees Eleven thousand seven hundred only). The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The opposite party has allowed to taken back the remaining bricks after paying the aforesaid amount. Since compensation and cost are allowed, no interest to the amounts is not allowable. The opposite party is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest will follow at the rate of 9% per annum from this date till the whole payment. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November, 2009. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : True copy of complaint dated 10.06.2009 submitted before the Circle Inspector of Police, Ezhukone. A2 : Receipt dated 28.06.2009 issued by Sunilkumar, driver of the opposite party. A3 : Receipt dated1.7.2009 issued by Gangadhara Kurup, Owner, Eskay Industries, Thumpamon Earam. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil. Court Exhibits: C1 : Report. C2 : Mahazar. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) K.M. Wilson, Kuzhimuriyil Veedu, Mathoor P.O., Thumpamon Earam Muri, Chenneerkara Village. (2) Senkumar, Venchembil Veedu, Karimpinpuzha P.O., Velanmoozhi, Pangodu, Pavithreswaram Village, Kottarakara Taluk. (3) The stock file.
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
