IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member,

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 43/2020 (filed on 26-02-2020)

Petitioner                                 :    Prasanth  Kumar C.

                                                     S/o Chandrasekharan Nair,

                                                     Munduvelil House,

                                                     Vattukulam P.O.

                                                     Kadappoor, Kottayam.

                                                    (Adv.  Deepthi G. Nair)

                                                                   Vs.

Opposite party                        :    Managing Director,

                                                     St. Marys Cement Centre,

                                                     Old Pala Road,

                                                     Kottayam,

                                                     Pin-686631

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

The complaint is filed under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complainant’s case is that on 7^th June 2018, the complainant purchased 31 brown coloured TRFRD sheet worth Rs. 57,830/- from the opposite party for the purpose of thatching the roof of his brother’s newly constructed house which was managed by him as his brother was abroad.  The products so purchased are:-

1.  18” TRFRD sheet (Brown) 2 Nos
2. 20” TRFRD sheet (Brown) 4 Nos
3. 22” TRFRD sheet (Brown) 25 Nos

On the same day the complainant made the payments for the materials Vide e-way bill No.1139 the opposite party delivered the goods to the complainant.  The next day itself the complainant thatched the roof with said sheets by expert workers and spending Rs.50,360/-as labour charge.  But after one month to the surprise of the complainant the colour of the sheet started fading.  The complainant approached the opposite party and demanded the replacement of the sheet.  But the opposite party was not amenable for that.  Only due to the guaranty given by the opposite party to the quality of the sheets at the time of purchase, the complainant purchased the same.  Due to the fading of the colour of the sheets, the roof looks shabby and elegant looks of the entire house is lost.  The complainant’s brother spent his hard-earned money to fulfil his long cherished dream house.  The non replacement of the sheets with quality one by the opposite party has caused mental pain, hardships and financial loss to the complainant and his family. There is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the opposite party which is to be compensated and hence the complaint is filed.  Though notice was served to the opposite party he did not appear or file version and hence was set ex-parte. 

In the evidence part the complainant produced affidavit in Lieu of chief examination along with Exbt. A1 and Exbt. A2.  The report of advocate Commissioner is marked as Exbt. C1.

We have given a thoughtful evaluation of the pleadings and evidence including commission report and are inclined to frame the following issues:

1.   Whether the complaint has succeeded in establishing the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party? 
2. If  so, what are the reliefs the complainant is entitled for ?

Point No. 1

The complainant alleges that the roofing sheet purchased him from opposite party was low quality as the colour of the same got fade with one month of the purchase. Exbt. A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant in this purchase.  Exbt. A2 is a bill issued to the brother of the complainant for the labour charge of thatching the roofing sheets.

This Commission appointed an advocate commissioner at the request of the complainant for ascertaining the grievances of the complainant.  The Commissioner reported that “the present condition of the sheet seems to be ruined as a result of fading of the coating over it. The exact colour of the sheet could not be identified, because of the fading of the colour of the sheet.  It seems to be covered with rust and the colour now appeared in the sheet is that of rust ie, pale brown/orange brown colour”.  Again it is reported that “the faded colour of the sheet diminishes the elegant and new look of the house.  The colour loss on the sheet would adversely affect the nobleness of the house and the works done on the exterior of the house for beautification turned futile and useless”.

 The replacement of new sheets would not retain the elegant and new look of the house, because the faded pale brown colour is spread over the wall, window and exterior fixtures, which diminished the fairness of the house.  After the replacement of the sheets; full painting on wall, windows and cleaning of exterior fixtures are required for retaining/maintaining the elegant and new look of the house. 

The poor quality of the sheet might be criteria for the present destruction.  Anyway, if the sheets are manufactured in the specifications required to be maintained high quality, it will be reflected in the life and quality of the products so produced by the manufacturer.   

The cost expended by the complainant for the Tress Roofing Works together with the cost of maintenance works to be done on account of damages occurred on exterior wall,  windows and fixtures of the house are the damages and the same are subject to the material cost required. 

So we find that the complainant has successfully established that the opposite party has supplied low quality sheets.  The opposite party was not ready to replace the defective sheets or to redress the grievances of the complainant.  So we find that, there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party by selling substandard quality products.  The opposite party has committed unfair trade practice also.

Point No. 2    

As it is evident from the pleading of the complaint and from the Commission report that the complainant had to suffer great financial loss leading to severe mental agony due to purchasing low quality sheets from the opposite party.  So the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for his hardships.

Thus in the light of the above discussion we allow the complaint. 

1.  The opposite party is directed to return Rs.57,830/- (Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty only) with 9% interest from 07.06.2018, the date of purchase of sheet till realization.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) as labour charges.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand only) towards the litigation costs.

Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of  receipt of Order in default of which interest @ 6% shall be given for the compensation account.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26^th  day of   November, 2021.

            Smt. Bindhu R.  Member      Sd/-

          Sri. Manulal V.S. President   Sd/-

          Sri. K.M. Anto, Member        Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – E-way bill no.1139 dtd.07-06-18 issued by opposite party

A2- Receipt dtd.10-07-18 issued by Amma Steel Works

Commission Report

C1 – Commission report dtd.08-10-21 issued by Bindu Abraham

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                   By Order 

                                                                             Senior Superintendent