CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.50/11
Thursday the 29th day of March, 2012
Petitioner : A.J.Sunny,
Alancheril House
101 Junction,
Athirampuzha PO,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : Proprietor,
East West Corporation,
Nagampadom, Branch
Kodimatha, Kottayam
686 006.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant visited the opposite party shop and received a quotation from the opposite party for purchasing 71 numbers of powder coated sheets with brick red colour on the upper side and silver grey colour on the lower side having a gauge of 35 mm of Essar Brand Galume Profile sheet. The opposite party agreed to deliver the said sheets at his own vehicle at the worksite of the complainant before 7.30pm on 15-01-2011. On that conditions the opposite party collected Rs. 85,970/- from the complainant as per invoice no.3451 dtd 15-01-2011. The complainant waited till 7 p.m at the shop for verification of the sheet before loading. But the opposite party delayed purposefully to manipulate the quality of the material and did not supply the material on 15-01-2011.
The complainant who is a government employee left for his job at about 8.45 am on 17-01-2011. At about 9 am, the opposite party delivered 71 powder coated sheets at the worksite of the complainant when only the workers of the complainant was present there. Since the sheets were unloaded in bundles of seven or eight numbers, each sheet was not verified and therefore the difference in colour and the thinness of the sheets were not noticed. The entire roofing work was carried out by the workers by that evening on the same day. The complainant who reached the worksite by 6 pm on that day noticed that the sheets were not identical in colour and gauge as agreed by the opposite party. On close observation of the sheets, it was noticed that the sheets were not belonging to Essar Galume profile brand as agreed and also as shown in the retail bill issued by the opposite party. The sheets were of various colours and gauge. Only a few sheets came upto the mark of 35mm gauge as agreed orally. All the sheets belonged to the Bhussan Co. instead of the Essar Brand Galume profile as agreed and as stated in the bill. Hence the complainant filed this complainant claiming replacement of the entire roofing work at the opposite party’s expense with Essar Galume Profile Co. sheets having similar colour and 35mm gauge, compensation Rs. 1 lakh and litigation cost.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The complainant has not obtained any oral quotation from the opposite party for purchsing .35mm sheets and to deliver the same before 7.30pm on 15/01/11
ii) The materials purchased were of same quality and quantity as was ordered by him. The galume profile sheets purchased by the complainant were not of .35mm. The allegations that the sheets were not identical in colour and of agreed gauge are false.
iii) The sheets sold to the complainant were SR Galume profile sheets and bill also drawn on that. In fact, the complainant did not place the order for any specific manufacturer. The gauge of the sheets for which he placed order was .30mm and not .35mm. Complainant paid for the sheets having .30mm thickness.
iv) There is no specific colour for the bottom side. If the complainant had any disagreement regarding the colour of the material, he ought to have brought the same to the notice of the opposite party before using the same.
v) The sheets once used could not be put to any other use later as at the time of laying the sheets are punctured at several points.
The opposite party further contented that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint directing the complainant to pay costs.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by parties and Exts A1 to A3
Point No.1
Heard the counsel for both sides and perused the documents. The complainant averred that he placed a quotation for purchasing 71 nos. of powder coated sheets with brick red colour on the upper side and silver grey colour on the lower side having a gauge of .35mm of the ESSAR Brand Galume profile sheet. But nothing is placed on record to prove that such a quotation is placed before the opposite party. Whereas the opposite party averred in their proof affidavit that the complainant demanded sheets having only .30mm thickness. The complainant filed the invoice copy dtd 15-01-11 showing the details of the sheets purchased. On perusing Ext.A1, it is seen that the first item of sheets which were only 4 in numbers had 18’30 TMR thickness. All the remaining sets of sheets had only thickness of 16 TMR, 14TMR, 12TMR, 10TMR&8TMR. The aforesaid averment of the opposite party clearly proves that the complainant had made a demand whether it is for .30mm or for .35mm. And as admitted by the opposite party the said demand was only for .30mm. From Ext.A1 it is clear that the opposite parties had supplied only 4 sheets having 18.30 TMR thickness. So from the admission of the opposite party itself it is clear that they had not supplied the demanded type of sheets to the complainant.
The complainant further averred that the purchased sheets showed difference in colour and manufacturer. No scrap of paper is produced to show that the complainant made a specific order for a particular colour or product of a particular manufacturer. Nothing is placed on record to prove the alleged colour difference and manufacturer difference exhibited by the said sheets.
The complainant produced a copy of the lawyers notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and it is marked as Ext.A2. It is significant to note that the opposite party had failed to respond to the said Ext.A2, lawyers notice. In our view the opposite party’s negligence to respond to the said notice and their disinterest to redress the complainant’s grievances might have forced him to file the complaint before the forum. As the sheets are already thatched, there is no relevancy in ordering replacement. The failure shown by the opposite party in not responding to the petitioner’s complaint and supplying sheets of varying thick ness to the complainant where his demand was for more thick sheets are clear cases of deficiency in service. We are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the monetary loss, time loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for the monetary loss, time loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the ordered sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of invoice dtd 15-01-11
Ext.A2-Copy of advocate’s notice dtd 25/1/11
Ext.A3-Original acknowledgement card
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
