CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15 th day of December, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 09/02/2015
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/21/2015
James,
S/o. Chodadu Savia,
Adiperanda, Thiruvazhiyodu,
Nenmmara, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad – 678510.
(By Adv.Bejoy.N.V) : Complainant
Vs
Thangalkutty,
S/o. Abdul Rahman,
Chulliyala, Chathamangalam, : Opposite parties
Nenmara, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad District – 678508.
(By Adv.K.Sureshkumar)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma K.P.Member
The complainant has purchased 22 loads of clay bricks ie 44000 nos of clay bricks from the opposite party in the month of April 2014. While purchasing, the opposite party promised and made to believe the complainant that bricks are of high standard and there will be no damages to any bricks and would be fit enough for all purposes including construction of multi stored buildings. The opposite party had also promised that at all if any damages are caused and found out to the bricks, which he manufactured and purchased from him, it will be taken back and amount will be refunded. On believing the opposite party, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,49,000/- ie @ Rs.3.40 paise per brick and paid Rs. 13,200/- towards vehicle rent ie Rs.600/- per load. The opposite party had unloaded the bricks into 5 heaps for construction purpose immediately. When the complainant took the bricks from the first heap for construction of his dwelling house it was found that most of the bricks had been damaged and become useless. The bricks are found turned into clay and loose mud was seen as coming out and the bricks was not having the required shape, stiffness and quality. It appears that the bricks are not properly baked in the furnace and that was the reason why the loose mud has come out. It has proven itself as unfit for any purpose including the construction and for which it is meant and manufactured. On seeing this, the complainant had given a police complaint and the opposite party had paid a sum of Rs.18000/- as compensation. When the complainant asked his engineer to verify and count the damaged bricks of other heaps it was found that 20000 more numbers of bricks had been damaged due to the manufacturing defect, which amounts to Rs. 68000/-. The complainant alleges that the above acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.The opposite party is liable to return the amount of Rs.68000/- and Rs.6000/- for transportation charges obtained from the complainant for the damaged bricks. Even though on several occasions the complainant requested the opposite party for the same , he had not taken any steps. Hence he had approached before this forum seeking an order to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,74000/- towards damages and loss sustained to the bricks along with compensation for the mental agony suffered by him.
The opposite parties entered appearance upon the notice served from the forum and filed their versions containing the following:-
The above complaint is not maintainable and is frivolous and vexatious. The intention of the complainant is to grab money by illegal means. In fact there is no manufacturing defect or damages caused to the bricks as alleged in the complaint. The complainant searched so many brick –klin manufacturing units and after testing and satisfying the quality of the bricks manufactured by the opposite party and after conducting all tests, the complainant purchased the bricks loads from the opposite party. After a lapse of two months the complainant again approached the opposite party to purchase some loads of bricks with off seasonal price. As the price was very high during that time, for which the opposite party was not amenable and on that vengeance the complainant, filed a false complaint before the concerned police station influencing the police people and the police called the opposite party and not only that the complainant blocked all the loads taken from the brick- klin unit for supplying to others thereby the opposite sustained heavy loss, in which he proposed to initiate legal steps. The police has threatened and compelled the opposite party to pay damages by ignoring the damages caused to the opposite party. In fact there was no manufacturing defect or damage for the bricks. Normally while loading and unloading the bricks and heaping the bricks, falling, throwing etc there is every chance for causing damages for the bricks. There is also chance for damaging the bricks while transporting the same in the normal course. The opposite party has never committed any defect or deficiency in service. The opposite party is not at all responsible for the loss caused to the complainant as alleged in the complaint and the complainant has not sustained any loss or mental agony. The intention of the complainant is that by creating false evidence and to defeat the legitimate or legal right of the opposite party he is trying to get an unfair advantage over the opposite party by misleading the Forum. When the opposite party was called by the police and in front of the police mediation talk was done and matter was settled and the opposite party was forced to pay an amount of Rs. 18000/- towards damages caused to the bricks as stated by the complainant and the opposite party was compelled to accept the same and constrained to pay the amount through police forcefully. The opposite party never made believe the complainant that the bricks are of high standard and there will be no damages to any bricks and would be fit enough for all purposes including construction of multi storied building and if any damages caused to the bricks it will be taken back and the amount will be refunded. It is the duty of the complainant to see the standard and quality of bricks and the opposite party is not responsible for that. The opposite party is a poor labourer, illiterate person, he was forcefully taken to the police station and harassed unnecessarily and forced to enter into an agreement and subscribe his signature. On the basis of the agreement the opposite party was constrained to pay the amount. By suppressing the material facts the complainant filed a false and frivolous complaint to grab money from the opposite party by illegal means. The above application is filed with malafide intention to create more problems. In the circumstances the above complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed application as IA no:68/15 for appointing an advocate commissioner to inspect the damaged bricks and take their numbers and to file a detailed report. Application was allowed, and the commissioner inspected the site and filed a detailed report. The complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party filed objections to the commissioners report and also application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. IA was allowed and the complainant was cross examined as PW1. Exhibit B1 was marked through PW1. The complainant filed witness list and an application for cross examination of the commissioner. The commissioner was examined as CW1, and the report was marked as exhibit C1. The complainant’s witnesses was examined as PW2 and PW3. Exhibit A1 series was marked through PW2. The opposite party also filed chief affidavit and complainant filed petition seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. The opposite party was cross examined as DW1, and witness was also examined as DW2. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.
The Issues that arises for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues 1 & 2
We have perused the affidavits, depositions as well as the exhibits produced before the forum. The complainant had admitted that he had purchased 44000 bricks from the opposite party after satisfying the quality and its value. He had also admitted in his evidence that at the time of filing this complaint, the construction of the house was completed. He had also further admitted that 3 heaps of brick are stored in his house which includes old, damaged and other bricks including the old bricks of his demolished house. This fact was noted by the commissioner in his report and he had also given evidence to that defect. The complainant’s house is about 4000 sq.ft in measurement and according to PW3 (Mason) for the construction of 1000 sq.ft. it requires 20000 bricks. As per the commissioner’s report itself, it is clear that all the damaged bricks kept in the property is about 3 loads which means 6000 bricks which includes old, damaged and other bricks which are used and unused. The commissioner has taken the evidence that there is no proofs to the effect that the opposite parties bricks are kept in the premises separately. He could not identify or asses the number of defective bricks purchased from the opposite party. The numbers of defective bricks was also not separately calculated. Moreover the complainant had admitted in his evidence that he had approached the opposite party again for the purchase of the bricks. If the bricks supplied where of substandard quality, normally he would not have again contacted the opposite party to purchase the same. From the above facts itself it is clear that the complainant had admitted the quality of the bricks supplied. There is no evidence to prove the complainant’s allegations that there were 20000 and odd bricks are damaged. The complainant had miserably failed to prove the allegations stated in the complaint. Hence on appreciation of evidence adduced by both parties and considering the circumstances of the above case it is revealed that there is no materials before the forum to arise to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case . In view of the above observation the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on 15th December 2016.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Presidents
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Photo of bricks(3 nos).
Ext.A2-CD of the photos
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Agreement copy between James and Thangalkutty dtd.-17/06/2014.
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-James Xaviour
PW2-Krishnankutty
PW3- Selvaraj
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1- Thangalkutty
Commissioner’s Report
C1- Adv. Anand.C.B.
Cost Allowed
Nil
