DATE OF FILING : 23.8.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th  day of  January,  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P    MEMBER

CC NO.246/2016

Between

Complainants       :  1.  Anoop Gopal,

   Madathil House,    

   Riverview Road, Thodpuzha P.O.,

   Idukki.

         2. Jayakrishnan K.,

   Madathil House,    

   Riverview Road, Thodpuzha P.O.,

   Idukki.

  (Both by Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  The Manager,

       Pitts Steels,

       Vengalloor P.O., 

       Thodupuzha, Idukki.

       (By Adv:  P.A. Suhas)

  

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

First complainant is the brother of 2nd complainant.  Both the complainants constructed  new houses of same plan and covered its open terrace with polycarbonate sheet.  This polycarbonate sheet and its allied fitting materials were purchased from the opposite party's shop by paying Rs.84060/- on 11.4.2016.  By using this material both the complainants made roofing in their respective building with the help of one Vinod, who is an expert in this field.  Unfortunately 2 months of laying these sheets the screwed portion of the polycarbonate sheet caused damage.  Some of the sheets are fully broken and seen cracked. At the time of purchase, the opposite party offered 10 years warranty to these sheets and it is specifically printed in the covering plastic of each polycarbonate sheet.  

(cont.....2)

-  2  -

Complainant further averred that for laying these sheets, they paid Rs.12000/- as labour charges.  Due to this the complainant caused loss of Rs.96060/-.  Eventhough the matter is intimated to the opposite party, opposite party has not cared about it.  Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay the cost of materials along with compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version, opposite party contended that he is not a manufacturer of the said product and never had assured any seller warranty and the manufacturer is providing guarantee with their own terms and conditions.

 

Opposite party further contended that the complainant had examined the goods prior to purchase and satisfied.  The complainant not mentioned how many polycarbonate sheets are caused damages.  The opposite party denied that, these sheets were not sold by him.  Further contended that, the damage was caused during the time of   drilling holes and thereafter its improper installation.  The complainant admitted that, the cracks are originated from drilling holes.  This proves that polycarbonate sheet was drilled unskilled manner and screwed the same on the iron rail without aluminium cap profile, bare profile and U profile.  The diameter of the drill holes is not 50% larger than that of screws/bolts.  These sheets must not be fixed or clamped too tightly directly or indirectly to support iron/steel rail structure.  This will cause thermal expansion.  Admittedly, any of the condition has not been followed by the complainant before its installation.  Moreover, the worker is not arrayed as an opposite party in this complaint.  Further contended that these sheets naturally moves with temperature, it will need the correct fixing to allow this to occur without issues polycarbonate screws will precut a hole wide enough to allow for this expansion.  This prevents from buckling.  The worker, while installation of the sheets has omitted to consider that, over tightening will cause distortion and excessive stress and this lead to possible failure in the fixing of polycarbonate sheets.  Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party.

 

(cont.....3)

-  3  -

Evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite party by way of proof affidavit and documents.

 

First complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked.  Ext.P1 is the bill showing the purchase of polycarbonate sheet and its fitting materials dated 11.4.2016 from opposite party's shop.  Ext.P2 is the plastic cover of the polycarbonate sheets.  Ext.P3 is the bill showing the purchase of Troughed sheet and its fittings from the opposite party shop dated 20.4.2016 and Ext.C1 Commission Report marked.  From the defence side, opposite party was examined as DW1.  Ext.R1, one photograph is marked.

 

Heard both sides.

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any  deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-   We have heard the counsels of both the parties and gone through the records.  It is submitted by the learned counsel of the complainant that the polycarbonate sheets purchased from the opposite party's shop are got damaged within 2 months   from the date of laying it.  It was laid by experts in this field.  Due to inferior quality of the product, it happened and it caused much loss and mental agony to the complainants 1 and 2.

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party admitted the sale of the polycarbonate sheets and its fitting materials to the complainant as per Ext.P1 bill.  He further pointed out that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party since the manufacturer of the product is not arrayed as an opposite party.  The opposite party is only a seller and the manufacturer of the product provides the warranty to the product.  The learned counsel for the opposite party further argued that the sheets are fitted improperly with the person who is having no expertise in this field and the complainant admitted that the cracks are originated from drilling holes and the sheet are not installed with Aluminium cap profiles, base profiles and proper rubber washer and beading supporting railing structure's stem.

(cont.....4)

 -  4  -

On going through the evidence on record and the Ext.C1 Commission Report of the Expert Commissioner, we convinced that the polycarbonate sheet which was purchased from the opposite party is damaged immediately after its laying. Eventhough opposite party pointed out that this sheet is manufactured by some others, no details of the manufacturer is provided to the complainant in order to made the manufacturer as an additional opposite party.  Opposite party is the person who purchases the product from the manufacturer and he is duty bound to furnish the details of the manufacturer.  Under the above circumstances plea of non-joinder cannot exist.

 

Then the opposite party pointed out the method of fitting these polycarbonate sheets and described it elaborately in their version.  But opposite party has not a case that, he inspected the installation and found that it is installed improperly with unskilled labourers.  It is also noted that opposite party was present at the time of inspection of the Expert Commissioner.  At that time also opposite party has not took any effort to put up the matter to the knowledge of the expert commissioner or opposite party failed to adduce any work memo in the commission application from their side or opposite party failed to file a separate commission application to ascertain the defect in the installation of the polycarbonate sheet in question.

 

On the other hand, the 1st complainant who was examined as PW1 categorically stated that, the complainant installed the polycarbonate sheet upon their roof with the help of an expert in this field as directed by the opposite party at the time of its purchase.  To establish their version, opposite party miserably failed to adduce any expert evidence to convince the Forum regarding the defective installation of the sheets discussed above as they pleaded.

 

Here in this complaint,  complainants are seeking relief against the opposite party for repayment of the damaged polycarbonate sheets and its labour charges.  Eventhough the complainant stated that he laid the sheet with one expert in this field by paying Rs.12000/- as labour charge, no evidence is adduced and it cannot be considered.  Complainants are entitled to recover the amount from the opposite party as per Ext.P1 bill 

(cont.....5)

-  5  -

alone.  There is no pleading regarding the defect of other metal sheets, eventhough it is ascertained by the expert commissioner.

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the polycarbonate sheet sold by the opposite party, which is the subject matter of the case is defective and it is proved by the complainant through expert and the act of the opposite party in selling inferior quality of goods amounts to unfair trade practise.  

 

Hence the complaint allowed.  Opposite party is directed to cure the defect of the damaged polycarbonate sheet installed upon the roof of the complainant by replacing it with quality product or else opposite party is directed to repay an amount of Rs.84060/- to the complainants 1 and 2 along with 6% interest from 11.4.2016.  In addition to it, opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

  SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont.....6)

-  6  -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Anoop Gopal.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Balu Geordy.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -    bill showing the purchase of polycarbonate sheet and its fitting

         materials dated 11.4.2016 from opposite party's shop.  

Ext.P2            -   plastic cover of the polycarbonate sheets.  

Ext.P3            -   bill showing the purchase of Troughed sheet and its fittings from 

       the opposite party shop dated 20.4.2016.

Ext.C1            -  Commission Report marked.  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -   one photograph.

 

 

 

         Forwarded by Order,

 

 

              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT