By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019
2. Facts of the case in brief:- The Complainant had purchased roofing sheets from Opposite Party on 10.04.2018 for the Purpose of laying sheet on the roof of his house. The Opposite Party offered 30 years warranty to the roofing sheet. But within 6 months, the said material began to rust. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party about the bad condition of materials, the workers of the Opposite Party came 5 times and inspected and assured that the defective roofing sheets would be replaced. According to the Complainant, till this date Opposite Party did not take any steps to cure the defects. Hence, this Complaint.
3. On receipt of notice, the Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. They admitted that the roofing sheet was purchased for laying the sheet on the roof of the Complainant’s house and at the time of purchase the roofing sheet, the Opposite Party informed that it is sufficient to prevent roof leakage and not for use in areas exposed to fire, smoke and chemicals and for such purpose it is specially stated that laminated sheets should be used for such purposes. If the sheets are used for stables, stoves, etc., the possibility of corrosion is specifically stated and above is noted on the sticker attached to the sheet. But only because the sheets purchased Complainant were first used for the car shed and then near the stove for the purpose of stable, so only for the purpose of the complaint, it has been stated that the complaint is necessary and the Complaint has to prove it. The roofing sheet was damaged due to unscientific grazing of the barn and the stove built by the Complainant. The statement of the Complainant that the Opposite Party gave 30 years guarantee for the sheet purchased by the Complainant is false for the purpose of the Complaint. The supplier company has said only one year warranty for the roofing sheet. It is only for the roof of the house. It is a false statement that the Complainant had convinced the Opposite Party that the roofing sheet was rusted six months was rusted six months ago, and accordingly the people of the company came to the Complainant’s house 5 times and saw the damaged sheets and said that they would take steps to replace them. The sheet was damaged only due to the irresponsible act of the Complainant in that the Opposite Party went to the spot and inspected it only after receiving notice of the complaint filed by the Complainant. It was understood that the structure of the roof sheet itself has changed due to the heat and smoke from the stove and the dung and urine from the stables and people from the sheet’s manufacturing company went to the Complainant’s house to inspect it and found that there was no damage to the sheets on the Complainant’s car shed. But rust has also been seen in the sheets used between the barn and hearth. The Complainant, who is alleging manufacturing defect, has not joined the manufacturing company as a party, and therefore, the above case has the disadvantage of non-joinder of necessary and the Opposite Party is an unnecessary party in the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party the Complainant shall be solely responsible for any loss suffered by the Complainant due to the acts and omissions of the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the complaint with the cost.
4. The Complainant had filed petition to implead the manufacturer of the sheet as Opposite Party No.2, because the Opposite Party No.1 had raised issue of non-joinder of necessary party, the manufacturer. IA was allowed and Opposite Party No.2 was impleaded. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No.2, he was appeared and filed version. The Opposite Party No.2 denied that the statement that the Complainant purchased roofing sheets from the 1st Opposite Party on 10th April 2018 for covering the roof of the Complainant’s house and that the said sheet was guaranteed for 30 years, and that the sheet spread by the Complainant had rusted before six months and the Complainant convinced the Opposite Party No.1 about the damage. The statement of the Complainant that the people of the company came to the Complainant’s house five times, that the First Opposite Party saw the damaged sheets and said that necessary steps can be taken to replace it and that the manager and employees of the first Opposite Party organization went to the house of the Complainant and said that steps can be taken to replace the damaged sheet as soon as possible is not true. The statement in the complaint that the sheet has not been transferred to the Complainant till date, no steps have been taken, the Complainant has been suffering mentally and financially for nearly 3 years and Rs.5 lakhs should be paid as compensation, etc. for the same is denied by the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 further stated that he has no dealings with the Complainant. The Complainant has never purchased any products of the Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the Second Opposite Party is an unnecessary party. For this reason, the above Complaint has the defect of misjoinder of necessary parties. The Opposite Party No.1, on roofing which is profiled by the Opposite Party No.2 were purchased for sale many years back. But the sheets have been sold by the Opposite Party No.1 to other customers long back and are being used by customers without any complaints. Since the Opposite Party has already made other sales to first time customers. The roofing sheets profiled by them are of high quality and are in high demand in the market. Thus, selling only high-quality sheets profiled roofing sheet provided by them, consumers ask in the market and buy and use. The Opposite Party No.2 further stated that they are aware of the fact that the Opposite Party No.1 in the complaint buys various products in bulk and retails them. Thus, it is possible that the Complainant may have purchased the roofing sheets from some other company which sold the Opposite Party No.1. There this type of are many competitions of roofing sheet in the market. As such, the Opposite Party No.2’s product is being sold in the market because of the goodwill acquired by the Opposite Party No.2 due to the years of the service tradition and Opposite Party No.2 have colluded maliciously for the sake of their opponents and unnecessarily made the Opposite Party No.2 a party in the above complaint. According to them, they are unnecessary Party in the complaint. When the roofing sheet laid on top, Careless screwing without using drilling machine, but screwing in some other ways may cause the rubber washer with the screw to break or melt. Due to this, pores are formed between the screws, through which water seeps and damages the sheets. Besides, the screws used to fit the sheets are of poor quality and the screws are prone to leakage of water through the sheets and rusting of the sheets. Also, after spreading the top sheet, the iron residues of the sheets and iron grains left on the sheets after spreading the top sheet and iron grains by using brush water gun chemical reaction, properly or sticking to the top sheets without cleaning and using, as a result, the sheet may become discoloured and spots may form. Also suitable for cutting roofing sheets, when the sheets are cut with non-metal cutters, the paint coating on the edges of the sheets peels off, the metal surface is exposed and thus the sheets lose the paint coating which is essential for protection and the said part of the sheets gets easily damaged and losses its durability due to the continuous rainfall. When selling the product of Opposite Party No.2 the above information refers to the Opposite Party No.2 organization’s GEOROOF Installation Instructions, if the Complainant has purchased the roofing sheets of Second Opposite Party, if there is any defect in them, then the fabricators appointed by the petitioner are also liable to spread the above reasons. Therefore, the fabricator who spread above sheet is also a party to the complaint. For this reason, the above complaint has the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. The 2nd Opposite Party stated that the Complainant is not entitled to any amount as compensation from Opposite Party No.2. The coil required for profiling Georoof sheets of the Opposite Party No.2 the Complainant is procured from Asian Color coated ISPAT Ltd, Khopoli, VII, Dahivali, paliphata, Dist-Raigad: 4100203, Mumbai-Pune. The Opposite Party No.2 does not do anything else to the coils except to make sheets of various shapes by changing the shape of the coils purchased from the Opposite Party No.1. If there is any defect in the quality of the sheet, the coil manufactured Asian color coated ISPAT Ltd is the sole responsibility of the company. It is stated that the Complainant purchased the products on 10.04.2018, it cause over the Complaint is barred by limitation. The Opposite Party No.2 firm was earlier registered under the Indian Partnership Act as George and company, Kuttanellur, Thrissur. Then it has been converted into a private limited company named M/S. George Infra Private limited, Kuttanellur, Thrissur and registered with the Registrar of companies on 10.12.2021. M/S George Infra Private limited, Kootanellur, Thrissur was dissolved on 11.12.2021 and all the partnership firm members signed Conversion cum Dissolution Agreement, the fact that all the partners of the partnership firm and the directors of the Opposite Party No.2 and entire assets and liabilities of the partnership firm have been merged into Opposite Party No.2 have been clearly stated M/S GEORGE INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR is authorized to take action in accordance with law of the pre-existing partnership firm and all suits against the firm by reason of it. Therefore the Opposite Party No.2 prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. On perusal of complaint and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost from the opposite party?
6. In this case, no oral evidence adduced by the Complainant and Ext. A1 and C1, marked on the side of the Complainant. Ext.A1 is the invoice, for Rs.42,505.74/- issued by the Opposite Party No.1 TP Metal and Roofing to the Complainant for the purchase of roofing sheets with other materials. The Advocate Commissioner attached photographs of the sheets, which shows the sheets rusted and paint faded. Further, the photographs produced do not show that any dirt is collected on these sheets.
7. We have heard both the sides and gone through the documents.
8. Point No. 1 &2 :- For the sake of convenience the points No. 1 & 2 are considered here together:-
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased roof sheets along with its other fixing materials from the Opposite Party No.1 shop on 10-04-2018 for an amount of Rs.42,505/-. It is evident from Ext.A1 Invoice. The Complainant has not produced any document on the record to show that the Opposite Parties had given 30 years warranty to roofing sheet as stated by him. Moreover, the roofing sheet was purchased on 19.04.2018, but the complaint was filed on 26.10.2021, i.e., after 3 years of purchase of the product. The party who alleges unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties is obliged to prove the same by cogent evidence. It is pertinent to mention, if the consumer feels that the manufacturer of the product is indulging in illegal act by selling of inferior quality product, then, in the absence of warranty, consumer commission cannot proceed against the manufacturer or dealer. The sheets were installed by the Complainant for the purpose of roofing for his cow shed and kitchen. Even though the Advocate Commissioner stated he Commissioner stated in his report that the roofing sheets were seen rusted and faded but he further stated that she can’t say whether the defect happened due to the manufacturing defect or not. The advocate commissioner in his report stated that “dq^n§vjoäpIÄ hncn¡pt¼mÄ A{i²ambn skÂ^v kv{Iqhn§v {UnÃnw§v sajo³ D]tbmKn¡msX aäp km[mcW {UnÃv sNbvXncn¡p¶ joäpIfn {UnÃv D]tbmKn¡p¶{]jdn\vA\pkcn¨vBbXvjoäpIfnÂhfscBgv¶nd§nkv{Iqhnt\msSm¸apffdºÀhmjÀs]m«nt]mhpIbpwDcpInt]mhpIbpwsNbvXn«ntÃF¶v t\m¡n dnt¸mÀ«v sN¿phm³ cmw FXrI£nhÀ¡v sat½mbn ]dªXn³ {]Imcwt\m¡nbX]cntim[\thfbnÂkv{IqIfpwaäpwDbc¯nÂBbXn\mÂskÂ^vkv{Iqhn§v {UnÃn§vsajo\mtWm km[mcW {UnÃn§vsajo\mtWm D]tbmKn¨v {UnÃvsNbvXsX¶v a\Ênem¡m³ km[n¡p¶nÔ. “joäpIÄ ^nävsN¿p¶Xn\v D]tbmKn¨vkv{IqIÄ \nehmeanïXtÃsb¶v t\m¡ndnt¸mÀ«v sN¿m³ cmwFXrI£n Bhibs¸«Xn³ {]Imcw t\m¡nbXn³ kv{Iqhnsâ \nehmcs¯ ]än ]cntim[\thfbn a\Ênem¡m³ km[n¡phm³ ]äm¯XmIp¶p”. So, expert opinion is necessary to ascertain the reason for the defect of roofing sheet. Complainant did not apply for appointing an expert commission to evaluate the alleged manufacturing defect. Except the bill, there is no other documentary evidence on the file to corroborate the pleaded version of the Complainant that sheets were of inferior quality. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of April 2024.
Date of Filing:-30.09.2021
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Munshid. V. K. Business.
OPW2. Pratheesh Jose. Company Jose.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Invoice. Dt:10.04.2018.
C1(a). Advocate Commission Report. Dt:28.01.2023.
C1(b). Copy of Photographs.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1(Series). Tax Invoice (2 Numbers).
B2. Abstract of the Minutes of Meeting of Directors of George Infra
Private Limited. Dt:21.06.2022.
B3. True Copy of Resolution. Dt:15.01.2021.
B4. Copy of Letter.
B5. Form No.URC-1.
B6. Certificate of Incorporation.
B7. Copy of Brochure.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
