DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 17th day of October 2023
CC.531/2014
Complainant
M. Jayesh,
S/O Bhaskaran,
Koottungal (HO),
Vallikkunnu North .P.O,
Kadalundi Nagaram,
Malappuram
(By Adv. Sri. P.V. Muhammed Shahid)
Opposite Parties
The Commonwealth Trust Ltd,
South Mananchira road,
Post Box No. 5
Kozhikode – 673001
(By Adv. Sri. B. M. Shamsuddin)
ORDER
By SMT. PRIYA.S - MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 10/05/2014 the complainant purchased 1420 roof tiles and 110 ridge tiles from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 43,502/-. He paved those tiles on the truss of his house. During rain the tiles became wet and the water started dripping in. This was intimated to the Manager of the company directly. But he did not attend the complainant. So the complainant sent a registered notice to the Manager. The truss was made up of iron and it started rusting. So the complainant wants to get a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-as shown below;
Sl. No Heads Expenditure
1. Material’s cost and truss work charge 1,90,000
- Purchase of tiles 43,502
- Loading and unloading 4,000
- For laying tiles 28,000
- For paint and painting 35,000
- The opposite party filed version.
- According to the opposite party, on 10/05/2014 the complainant had purchased both roofing tiles and ridge tiles for an amount of Rs. 43,501.50 from the opposite party. As admitted by the complainant, these tiles were paved on iron roof top. The roof tiles and ridge tiles made of clay manufactured and marketed by the opposite party for decades are not meant for being laid on G.I Steel, aluminium or iron rafters and reapers. This has been specifically written and displayed in the office and sales counter of opposite party for the information of customers. In the case of wooden made roofs supports, seating of the tiles will be easily and perfectly done with necessary cutting and chipping of wooden parts as and when necessary, whereas it is not possible in the case of steel and metal roof tops, as a result of which, seating of the tiles will not be perfect and leak proof, which was the probable reason in the case of the complainant’s roof which is alleged to be leaking. The alleged defect is not the defect of the tile or its manufacturing defects. During rainy season, water content in the tiles gets saturated and even if a few drops of water comes out as “dew”, in wooden roof structures it will be absorbed by wooden rafters and reapers whereas in the steel and iron roof – structures, there will not be such absorption and it will stand on the iron or G.I rafters like water drops. One load of broken tiles purchased by the complainant had also been used for laying on the roof, which is likely to cause seepage of water from the roof top. For the reasons stated above, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs to opposite party.
- The points that arise for determination in this case are;
(1) Whether the tiles supplied are having manufacturing defect?
(2) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Exts. B1, B2 and B3 series on the side of the opposite party. The expert report was marked as Ext. C1 series.
- Both sides filed notes of argument.
- Points No. 1 and 2 : It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased tiles worth Rs. 43,502/- from the opposite party. The opposite party is the manufacturer of the tiles.
- In order to substantiate the allegation, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext.A1 is the purchase Bill, Ext. A2 is the registered letter, Ext. A3 is the acknowledgement card and Ext. A4 is the printout of photographs.
- The foreman of the opposite party was examined RW1 and he has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the version. Ext. B1 and B2 are bills and B3 series are the report and photographs.
- The grievance projected in the complaint is that during rain, the tiles are getting wet and the water is dripping in. This has been spoken to by PW1 also. Going by the averments in the written version and the proof affidavit of RW1 , it can be seen that the opposite party is also not seriously disputing the fact that there is leakage. Ext. A4 photographs also confirm this fact. But the case of the opposite party is that it is not on account of any manufacturing defects of the tiles, but because of fact that the tiles are paved on metal roof top.
- The complainant is alleging manufacturing defects in the tiles. It is for the complainant to prove the allegation of manufacturing defect by adducing cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub Division, Parappanangadi inspected the building and filed report which is marked at Ext. C1 series. It is reported Ext. C1 that some white powder which was falling down while touching was seen formed on the tiles. It is also reported that water was oozing from the tiles and iron frame beneath. It may be noted that the learned expert has not reported that there is any manufacturing defect to the tiles and she could not conduct test of the tiles as there was no facility for the same in the department. Despite such a report, the complainant has not taken any steps to conduct any laboratory test of the tiles so as to ascertain whether there is any manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held that there is manufacturing defect in the tiles. So the claim for cost of the construction as prayed for in the complaint cannot be allowed.
- But it may be noted that the complainant has another grievance that the opposite party neglected to attend his complaint. He has sent a complaint by registered post to the Manager of the opposite party as per Ext. A2. But neither any reply was sent nor any positive steps were taken by the opposite party to look in to the grievance of the complainant, who has purchased tiles worth Rs. 43,502/- from them. The inaction on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.30,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/-of the cost of the proceedings.
- Point No. 3: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC No. 531/2014 is allowed in part.
(b) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousandonly) as compensation to the complainant.
(c) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
(d) The payment shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) sgall carry an interest of 6%perannum from the date of thisorder till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 17thday of October, 2023.
Date of Filing: 18/10/2014
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Purchase Bill.
Ext.A2 – Registered letter.
Ext.A3 – Aacknowledgement card.
Ext.A4 – Printout of photographs.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext.B1– Bills.
Ext. B2– Bills.
Ext.B3 series – Report and photographs.
Commission Exhibits
Ext C1 series - Expert report.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - M. Jayesh (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Ajay Kumar
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
