SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant for the value of loss of GAF brand roofing shingles and compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
The brief of the complaint
The complainant had approached OP’s institution on 24/10/2011 for intending to purchase GAF brand Roofing Shingles on his house. Then the complainant and OP entered into an oral agreement for the value of roofing shingles and the labour charge of workers for Rs.4,49,320/-. Then the complainant booked the articles of shingles on 24/10/2011 and he paid an advance amount of Rs.3,14,000/- to OP on the same date and receipt issued by the OP to the complainant also. At the time of receiving the advance amount the OP offered that within 2 months the OP entered complainant’s house and fit the GAF brand roofing shingles in his house. But repeated the demand of the complainant the OP approached complainant’s house on 24/06/2015 and to fit roof shingles in his house. At the time of fitting the roof shingles the OP issued a warranty certificate dated 24/06/2015 to complainant stated that any defect caused in the shingles, colour and occurrence of stains, algae and fungal warranted for 10 years against the material only believing the assurance and advertisement of OP the complainant had purchased the GAF brand roofing shingles form OP’s institution. But after 2 years of purchase of this article the shingles colour completely shaded, the shingles got algae fungal and shingles are loose in appearance. Then the complainant informed the matter to OP in several times. The OP assured that he will cure the defect of the roof shingles immediately. But the OP is not cure the defects of the article within the warranty period also. Then the complainant send a registered lawyer notice to OP dated 19/12/2022. After receiving the notice the OP neither send reply nor paid the amount to complainant. So the act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to OP. But the OP not appeared before the commission and not filed the version. Ultimately the commission had to hold that the OP has no version filed before the commission as such this case came to be proceed against the OP as absent and set ex-parte.
On 09/10/2023 the complainant had filed an expert application before the commission. The petition allowed and Mr. Byju P is appointed as the expert commissioner. Then the expert inspected the site and filed the report before the commission and marked as Ext.C1.
Even though the OP remained absent in this case it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP. Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 6 documents marking them Ext.A1to A6 and Ext.C1expert report also. Ext.A1 is the quotation issued to complainant dated 24/10/2011. As per the quotation invoice the OP has received an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- from the complainant. The roofing shingles contain 2636 square feet. Ext.A2 is warranty certificate issued by the OP to the complainant dated 24/06/2015. As per warranty certificated it clearly stated that the product is warranted for 10 years against material, colour and occurrence of stain, algae and fungal. Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 19/12/2022. Ext.A4 is the postal receipt and Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card. A6 is the receipt issued by OP to the complainant dated 04/11/2011 for an amount of Rs.75,000/- received by the OP. So it is clear that OP has received total amount of Rs.3,85,000/- from the complainant for the delivery of roofing shingles. But the roofing shingles are defective within the warranty period and the OP is not cured the defect also. As per the Ext.C1 report the expert stated that about 90% of the fixed shingles on the roof have faded in colour and the fixed shingles are loose in many areas. The starter has completely disintegrated in several parts and has fallen down”. But the OP has not yet solved the problem. Moreover, the expert stated that the colour fade is due to the use of poor quality material. Todays scenario the best quality shingles currently fetch a maximum rate of Rs.130 per square feet. So the act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. The OP is bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the OP is liable to pay the value of roofing shingles for Rs.3,42,680/- (2636 square feet Rs.130 per square feet) to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant Rs.8,000/- as litigation cost.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay the value of roofing shingles of Rs.3,42,680/- (2636 square feet X Rs.130 per square feet) to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant Rs.8,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs. 3,42,680/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exhibits for complainant
A1(series) – Quotation (2 in Nos.)
A2 – Warranty certificate
A3- Copy of lawyer notice
A4-Postal receipt
A5-Acknowledgment card
A6-Receipt dated 04/11/2011
C1-Expert report.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
