IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 30th day of January, 2016
Filed on 21..04..2012
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.139/2012
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Kunjumon 1. The Manager, H.H.Y. Steel
Kizhkkepattathil Bank Road, Kayamkulam P.O.
Arattupuzha Muri Kayamkulam Village
Arattupuzha Village Pin – 690 502
Karthikappally Taluk
(By Adv. Hameed Manthalasseril) 2. M/s. Sathyam Steels, 40/3927
R. Soria Beevi Building
Payyappilly Road
Kochi – 682 035
(By Adv. K. Jayakumar – for
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. M/s. Proper Products Pvt. Ltd.
33/2328, Ponnurunni
Chelickavattom, N.H. Bye Pass
Ernakulam – 19
4. M/s. M.J.S.W. Steel Ltd.
Grande – Palledium, 6th Floor
175 CST., Kadina, Santha Guze
East, Mumbai – 400 098
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:-
The complainant on 23rd April 2011 purchased 25 G.I. roof sheets for an amount of Rs.23,470/- from the opposite parties. The complainant purchased the said roof-sheets consequent upon the opposite parties’ assurance as to the roof sheets superior quality and their long lasting durability. The opposite parties made the complainant believe that the roof sheets are of higher quality and will remain undamaged and unspoiled for several years if used in whichever climate. Notwithstanding the opposite parties’ assurances as to the article’s quality and durability, the said roof sheets within six months of its purchase commenced to corrode and wear away. Thereafter within few days the entire sheets ruptured and shattered leading to its complete wreckage. The complainant instantaneously approached the first opposite party, and impressed upon them that the roof-sheets they sold out to him was of inferior quality marked with manufacturing defect. The first opposite party assured the complainant that the grievance of the complainant would be resolved forthwith. Subsequently, the first opposite party caused to send a person claiming to have been the representative of the manufacturing company to inspect the sheets. The person so sent went back saying that the roof-sheets did not belong to his company. Thereafter the opposite parties required the complainant to produce the photographs of the damaged sheets to be produced before the company. Though the complainant did as instructed by the opposite party, the same yielded no results. The complainant on 14th March 2012 caused to send a legal notice to the opposite party which also caused any useful response from the opposite party. The opposite party sold roof-sheets of inferior quality to the opposite parties, and obtained heavy cost for the same from the complainant. The opposite parties’ trade practice is unfair. The complainant sustained mental and monetary woes. On getting aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. Though notices were sent, the first opposite party alone make it a point to turn up before this Forum and filed version. The first opposite party contends that the roof sheets were chosen by the complainant himself. The said sheets were sold out to the complainant for a reasonable price. Similar sheets were sold out to several other customers prior to the selling of the material sheets to the complainant which never caused any room for any sort of complaint. The roof sheets purchased by the complainant were used very close to the coastal area which augmented rusting and ruining of the sheets. As a matter of fact the complainant’s mistreatment and mishandling of the sheets led to its complete ruin, the opposite party contends. The complaint is without any basis and the same is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite party fervently contends.
3. Complainant‘s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, another witness as PW2 and the documents Exts.A1 to A6 series were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, one of the representative of the opposite parties was examined as RW1 and the document Ext.B1 marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up before us for consideration are:-
Whether the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice?
Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. We cautiously went through the complaint, version, testimonies and materials brought record by the parties. The complainant’s case is that the complainant on 23rd April 2011 purchased 25 G.I. roof sheets for an amount of Rs.23,470/- from the opposite parties. The opposite parties willfully convinced the complainant that the material sheets were indisputably of better-quality having an intact life of several years which would withstand any weather conditions. The complainant believed the opposite parties’ words, and purchased the material roof sheets. However within six months the roof sheets were caught up with corrosion leading to its ultimate damage. The complainant approached the opposite parties on several occasions and impressed them upon the ad state of affairs as to the material sheets. The opposite parties though offered to resolve the complainant’s issue never did so. On a plain perusal of the version filed by the opposite party, it can be see that the main contention raised by the opposite party is that the complainant used the sheets in the manner the sheets ought not to have been used. To put it clearly, the sheets were used in the area which very close to the sea. According to the opposite party if sheets are used near coastal area, the presence of salt therein would cause damage to the sheets. On perusal of the entire materials, it appears that the opposite party admits that the sheets sold out to the complainant were got damaged. According to them, the same was as a result of the wrong handling of the sheets by the complainant. It seems that the complainant has made specific and useful attempt to bring home the complainant’s contentions, on the other hand, the opposite party appears to have taken no serious steps to challenge or disprove the same. At this point, in the instant premise the most prominent issue to be looked into is whether the sheets sold out by the opposite party got damaged too early. Admittedly the material sheets succumbed to corrosion and resultant ruin. The reasoned assigned by the opposite parties as to the said phenomenon is the presence of salt in the coastal area. In our perspective, the opposite parties’ contentions seems so a weak one which unfortunately does not merit acceptance. Needless to say, the trade practice of the opposite party is absolutely deficiency and the complainant sustained immeasurable mental agony and harassment. The complaint inevitably is entitled to compensation on that count.
For the forging facts and findings emerged herein above, the opposite parties are directed to hand back an amount of Rs.23,470/- (Rupees twenty three thousand four hundred and seventy only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to give a compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment the opposite parties inflicted on him. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost to the complainant. The opposite are comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX
Evidence of the Complainant:-
PW1 - Kunjumon (Witness)
PW2 - M.K. Roy (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Cash invoice dated 23.4.2011
Ext.A3 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A4 - True copy of the legal notice dated 14.3.12
Ext.A5 - Copy of the reply notice dated 16.3.2012
Ext.A6 series - Photos (4 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Muhammed Siddique A.S. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Photo
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: pr/-
Compared by:-
