By Smt. Beena.M, Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  Facts of the case in brief:  The 2^nd Opposite Party had advertised in Medias and made the Complainant  believe that  the roofing sheets which are produced by the 2^nd Opposite Party are the best among the available roofing sheets in India and that if any complaint occurs, the same would be replaced then and there without any delay.  Believing this, on 20-02-2018 the Complainant had purchased 5324.65 Sqr. Ft. Georoof roofing material for Rs.1,75,979.68/- from the shop of 1^st Opposite Party as per Tax Invoice No.4895, which were manufactured by 2^nd Opposite Party.  At the time of purchase, the Opposite Parties assured 5 years warranty against colour fading and life time service for peel off plights to the materials and the Opposite Parties had issued warranty card to the Complainant. The Complainant had spent Rs.1,33,100/- towards labour charges for fixing the sheets on the roof.   After few months, the Complainant noticed so many dots on the sheets due to rust and fading of colour due to low quality of materials. Then the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested to replace the defective sheets. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties deputed an expert to inspect the sheet who inspected and found that the complaint is genuine, but the Opposite Parties has not replaced the materials. The above said acts   of Opposite Parties are unfair trade practice and against the terms of warranty and it caused heavy damages to the complainant and the Opposite Parties are liable for the same. That on 13-08-2018 the Complainant caused to send a registered legal notice to Opposite Parties and the same was served on the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties sent a reply and thereby denied the real facts.  The 1^st Opposite Party being the authorized dealer of the roofing sheets and the 2^nd Opposite Party being the manufacturer of the roofing sheets are jointly and severally liable to replace the roofing sheets within a reasonable time and without causing much inconvenience to the Complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

3.  Upon notice, both Opposite Parties appeared and filed version.  The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that they have not given any advertisement regarding the roofing sheet in print media as stated in the complaint. Such advertisements were issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  As stated in the complaint, on 22.02.2018, the Complainant had purchased 5324.65 sq. feet, Georoof roofing sheets from the 1^st Opposite Party firm for Rs.1,75,979.68/- is correct.  For that a tax invoice number 4895 had been issued.  The said sheets were manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party. As requested by the Complainant,  the sheets were brought from the 2^nd Opposite Party only.  The 2^nd Opposite Party had assured for the quality and guarantee of the sheets.  The guarantee card issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party had been given to the Complainant.  The Complainant has to prove that Rs.1,33,100/- was spent on spreading the sheets.  On the basis that when the Complainant said that the sheets were defective, the 2^nd Opposite Party had been informed and the 2^nd Opposite Party had examined the sheets.  The 2^nd Opposite Party is solely responsible for all defects caused by manufacturing defects.   As there has been no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st Opposite Party, it is liable to be dismissed with cost of the Opposite Party. 

4.  The 1^st Opposite Party filed additional version also. 

The 2^nd Opposite Party also filed version and denied the statement that the Complainant purchased the product of the 2^nd Opposite Party firm from the 1^st Opposite Party.   The products were billed for Rs.1,75,979/-.  The statements made by the Complainant that after a few months of purchase of the products, the colour of the products faded, rust started to spread and spots formed on the sheets are not true.  All other allegations in the complaint denied. They further submitted that Georoofs Sheets manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party are of high quality and are in high demand. When unskilled workers spread the roofing sheet and fix it without drilling machine, when they punch and fasten it, when they drill with an unsuitable drilling machine, the layers of the sheets are damaged and when low quality screws and washers are used, holes are formed due to leakage of water and cause damage to the sheets.  Apart from that, after spreading the sheets, if the residues of sheets and iron grains left on the sheets are not properly cleaned with a brush or water gun, the residues will stick to the sheets and cause a chemical reaction due to which there is a possibility of discoloration and formation of spots on the sheet.  The materials required to manufacture the Opposite Party products are procured from Asian Color Coated ISPAT. In the above case, it is necessary to add Asian Color Coated ISPAT as a party. The Opposite Party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost of Opposite Party.

5.  The Complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1 and the expert Commissioner who was deputed by the Commission was examined as PW2.  The Commission report was marked as Ext.C1.  One witness for the Complainant was examined as PW3. The documents produced by the Complainant were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 document marked through OPW2.  The 1^st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and the document marked on behalf of the 1^stOpposite Party as Ext.B1. The sales coordinator of 2^nd Opposite Party was examined as OPW2 and the documents were marked as Ext.B2 to B7.

6.  Points for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. If so, relief and cost.

7.  The Complainant’s case is that he had purchased Georoof roofing material for Rs.1,75,979.68/- from the 1^st Opposite Party, manufactured by 2^nd  Opposite Party, became defective after few months of purchase. 

8.  The Complainant’s case is that roofing sheets for Rs.1,75,979.68/- purchased from 1^st Opposite Party, manufactured by 2^nd Opposite Party, became defective after few months of purchase. Complainant produced tax invoice and the same is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext A1, it can be understand that the price of the roofing sheet is Rs.1,75,979.68/-. The 1^st Opposite Party produced Tax Invoice & the same is marked as Ext.B1. From Ext.B1, it can be understand that 1^st Opposite Party had purchased the roofing sheet from 2^nd Opposite Party. On going through the evidence on record, it is seen that the 2^ndOpposite Party put forwarded that the Complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party stating that the raw materials which is the iron coil were purchased by them from another company. If the defect occurred were due to the defect of that materials, they are liable for the same. Here, no corroborating evidence is produced by the Opposite Party to substantiate their version.  If the raw materials purchased from the alleged company, Opposite Parties must have its purchase details. But Opposite Party failed to produce any documentary evidence to convince that the alleged company which is stated in the version is the responsible person for defect. Here purchase of raw materials from some-where and they sell it as finished products under the name Georoof sheets. The public knows only the brand Georoof sheet, which is finished product of Opposite Party Company and only the 2^nd Opposite Party Company having consumer relationship with its customer. Hence the defense of non-jointer of necessary party raised by the Opposite Party cannot be sustainable.  On the basis of above discussion, the Commission is of a considered view that the roofing sheets which was sold by the Opposite Parties bearing some defects within the warranty period is due to poor quality and said defect is due to manufacturing defect and it is reported by an expert in the field. Ext.A2 is the warranty card, it is clear that the product has warranty for 5 years from the date of purchase, which covers colour fading of roof products and lifetime service for peel off plights. As per Ext.C1 commission report the colour of the roofing sheet faded within five years from the purchase of the roofing sheet.  The Opposite Party contended that the defect was  happened due to lack of experienced labours and non-suitable drilling machine was used for drilling the machine was used for drilling the sheets, there is every possibility to leak the rain water into these holes and it caused spreading rust into the sheets. At the time of cross examination of expert Commissioner, the 2^nd Opposite Party asked about this, then the Commissioner deposed that ‘’sheet tabp¶Xn\v nailing  \v holes CSpt¼mÄ AXnsâ AhinjvSw aqehpw Xpcp¼p­mImw.  Zzmcw nuts t\¡mÄ hepXmsW¦n shffhpw hmbphpw IS¶pw Xpcp¼p­mImw. Tight Bbn washer D]tbmKn¡mXncp¶mepw AhnsS Xpcp¼p­mImw” and at re-examination he deposed that “Xpcp¼v XpfIfnepw AÃm¯ Øe§fnepw I­p”. The deposition of Commissioner shows that the defect occurred is due to the manufacturing defect.   The act of Opposite Parties in delivering inferior quality product to a poor consumer and in not replacing the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Due to the said act of Opposite Party, Complainant had suffered much mental agony, loss and suffering.  So, he is to be compensated.  Here, both the dealer and manufacturer of the roofing sheet are jointly and severally liable to the purchaser, because he knows only the dealer from whom he had purchased that roofing sheet and not its manufacturer.  If a product is found to be defective the prime liability is cast upon the manufacturer, though the dealer is also jointly and severally liable to compensate for the defect. Hence the dealer cannot escape from the liability. In the light of above discussion, we are of the opinion 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are liable for the deficiency in service and is liable to refund the cost of the roofing sheet and laying charges.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed to replace the roofing sheets or to refund Rs.1,75,979.68/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Nine and Sixty Eight Paisa Only) to the Complainant with 8% interest from the date of Purchase the price of the roofing sheets. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,33,100/-(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred Only) towards labour charges and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings.  The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of July 2024.

Date of Filing:-21.11.2018.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Shibu Jose.                                       Farmer.

PW2.              Ravisankar. R. S.                             Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD

Buildings Sub Division, Sulthan Bathery.

PW3.              Biju Polose.                                      Welding.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Abreham Augustine.                     Business.

OPW2.          Pratheesh Jose.                               Company Staff.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Tax Invoice.                                      Dt:20.02.2018.

A2.                  Warranty Card.

A3.                  Copy of Lawyer Notice.                Dt:13.08.2018.

A4.                  Reply Notice.                                   Dt:14.09.2018.

C1.                  Commissioner Report.                  Dt:24.08.2022.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.                  Tax Invoice.                                      Dt:19.02.2018.

B2.                  Authorization Letter.                    Dt:21.06.2022.

B3.                  Copy of Resolution passed at the Partner’s meeting.

Dt:15.01.2021.

B4.                  Copy of Letter.                   

B5.                  Copy of Form No. URC-1.

B6.                  Copy of Certificate of Incorporation.

B7.                  Copy of leaflet. 

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-