IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2023

Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

             Smt.Bindhu.R, Member

              Sri.K.M. Anto, Member

CC No. 193/2022 (Filed on15.09.2022)

Complainant                           :         Boban Antony,

                       Kumbalanthanam House

                       Puthenchantha

                      Mundakkayam P.O

                     Kottayam-686513

                                                (By Adv.Raju Abraham)

                                                         Vs

Opposite party                        :         Tijo Thomas, Branch Manager

                                                          M/S George and Company

                                                          Paingana, Opp.PathrepiyaKappoochin

                                                          Ashramam, Mundakkayam P.O

                                                          Kottayam.

                                                          O R D E R

Smt.Bindhu.R, Member

The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The complainant purchased Expana grandeur 40 GEO Red roofing sheets from the opposite party on 19.02.2018 for Rs.93,905/- and laid them on the roof of his house. At the time of purchase the opposite party  convinced the complainant that the said roofing sheet were manufactured by the opposite party company by themselves and it had five years warranty and free service for 25 years.  The roofing sheet were laid in 2018, over the 1300 sq.feet house.  After 2 years the complainant noticed that the colour of the roofing sheet was faded and he informed this to opposite party.  In 2021 November also the complainant demanded the service of the opposite party and they visited to examine the said roofing sheet, but thereafter there was no action from the opposite party despite repeated requests.  The opposite party   falsely advertise that their roofing sheet were water repellent, with special coating, with self cleaning mechanism anti fading and anti agingcolours.  Further they claimed that the said sheets were made of aluminum – zink material for cooling.  The roofing sheet which were claimed to have brought all this quality were faded and rusted within 2 years.   The opposite party is bound to replace the said roofing sheet as they have provided 5 years warranty for the colour fading and other defects.  The act of the opposite party  in not complying the warranty conditions is deficiency in service so hence this case is filed for replacement of the defective roofing sheet or getting Rs.2 lakhs for the replacement of the same from the opposite party  and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

Inspite of the receipt of the notice the opposite party did not care to appear before the Commission or to file version hence the opposite party was set exparte. 

The complainant adduced evidence through affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits A1 to A3.

Based on the pleadings and evidence we would like to frame the following issues. 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs and costs?

Point nos.1 and 2 together 

The complainantalleges that the roofing sheet purchased from the opposite party company got faded within 2 years which had a warranty of 5 years for colour fading and 25 years for other damages. 

The complainant produced Exhibits A1 to A3 in support of its allegations.

          Exhibit A1 is the GST invoice of Rs.93,905/- issued by opposite party’s company. Exhibit A2 is the receipt of Rs.88,905/-.  No explanation is given to the difference of amounts.  As per Exhibit A3 the warranty card for GEO roof product issued by the opposite party “warranty covers the colour fading of roof products for 5 years from the date of purchase. 

Warranty also covers life time service for peel off plights.So it is evident that the opposite party is bound to replace the faded roofing sheets as this happened within the warranty period. 

The complainant though alleges that the roofing got faded within 2 years itself and there will be a cost of Rs.2 lakhs to replace the same with new ones he has not produced any cogent evidence to prove this or sought for the assistance of an expert commissioner to assess the extent and value of the replacement.  So we are not inclined to allow the cost of the replacement. 

The complaint is allowed partly by directing the opposite party to replace the defective roofing sheets free of cost and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which  the opposite party shall pay Rs.88,905/- with an interest of 9% from 19.02.2018 the date of purchase of the roofing sheet. 

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^thday of March, 2023.

Smt.Bindhu.R, Membersd/-

Sri.Manulal.V.S, President  sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member  sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.

A1-    Invoice of George & Company, Mundakkayam P.O, Kottayam, dated 19.02.2018.

A2-    Original receipt (No.02262) of George & company, Mundakkayam P.O, Kottayam dated 19.02.2018.

A3-    Original warranty card of Georoof. 

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                     By order

                                                                                                                                         sd/-

                                      Assistant Registrar