By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant purchased 5000 country bricks from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.8,000/-, for the transporting of bricks 500 rupees was spent. The opposite party is involved in the trade of manufacturing and selling bricks. At the time of purchase the complainant has not examined the quality of the bricks made by the Opposite party. The bricks purchased were for the construction of a Bio Gas Plant. In addition to the purchase of bricks other accessories such as Cement, Iron Bar, PVC pipes were also purchased. The workers for the maisontry came to the complainant on 22-6-2005. The maisons, who came for <br /> Contd.......2)<br /> 2.<br /> the work when examined the bricks told that the bricks purchased were not of good quality and if the Bio Gas Plant was constructed using it, it will not remaining in its position as such. The complainant has spent Rs.1,000/- for the transporting of the bricks and for the purchase of sand and other things Rs.18,545/- was spent by the complainant. In addition to that 11 bags of cement purchased by the complainant became unusable. The sand and mettles purchased became waste and due to the improper quality of the country bricks purchased from the opposite party. The complainant had the loss of Rs.20,000/- towards the purchase of the bricks of substandard quality and it is to be compensated along with interest of 12 %. The act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party filed version. The contentions of the opposite party are as follows. It is admitted that the complainant purchased 5000 bricks from the opposite party. But the purchase was not on 15-3-2005. The complainant came to the opposite party's site for the bricks and tested quality of the bricks. The bricks were purchased on the appraisal of the quality of it. The complaint is born out of the enmity that the complainant had with the opposite party. The complainant had not given outrightly the price of the bricks to the opposite party at the time of purchase. The amount was paid only after repeated demands in two three occasions after words. There were the utterances of ruly talks in between the complainant and the opposite party when the price of the bricks were demanded. The complaint is made as a result of it. The bricks are manufactured and kept at distance of 50 meters away from the complainant's house. Moreover, regarding the quality of bricks opposite party has no doubt. The balance of bricks sold to the complainant were purchased by other contractors. The<br /> Contd.....3)<br /> <br /> .3.<br /> opposite party has no knowledge of any loss incurred to the complainant. If the complainant purchased cement, sand, mettels and other things and if anything as such loss caused to that effect the opposite party is not liable for it. The opposite party is not entitled to give the complainant any cost or compensation. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. The points in considerations are:<br /> 1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice in the sale of bricks?<br /> 2. Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> 4.Point No.1: The complainant is examined as PW1. To substantiate the evidence of the complainant Ext. A1 to A9 are marked. The allegation for the complainant is that from the opposite party the complainant purchased 5000 country bricks for Rs.8,000/-. Ext. A1 series are the vouchers showing the purchase of bricks, it is also admitted by the opposite party. The desire on the part of the opposite party to construct a Bio Gas plant is evident from the Ext.A3 series. The complainant entrusted the work to the maisons for the construction purpose,according to the complainant the other accessories as such sheet, mettles and cement were purchased by the complainant are not brought out in evidence. The bricks purchased by the complainant were of substandared quality according to the complaint and the complainant could not construct Bio Gas Plant. The case of the opposite party is that the country bricks sold to the complainant were of good quality. Moreover the complainant resides near about 250 meters away form the residence of the opposite party. The complainant was fully aware of the quality of the bricks and purchase was on appraisal of the bricks sold by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite party is examined as OPW1. Exts. B1,and B2 are marked to support<br /> the contention of the opposite party. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect and report about the bricks purchased Ext. C1 is the Commissioner's report. The document Ext. B1 is the complaint filed by the complainant before the Legal Services Authority, kalpetta. <br /> Contd......4)<br /> .4.<br /> B2 is the attested copy of the application given by the complainant to Krishi Officer, Vengappally. The Commissioner is examined as CW1 and admitted in the examinations the Commissioner is not an expert to asses the quality of the bricks and he is not having any knowledge in ceramic technology. On physical examination of the bricks heaped there, the commissioner could understand that some of the bricks heaped in the location where of substandard quality. In the report it is noted and also affirmed in the deposition that two sets of country bricks were found heaped in the location, One sets contain approximately in 3000 in Number and another set of 2000 bricks approximately. On physical examination on the strength of the bricks in the set of 2000 in number were not having sufficiently strong. The strength and quality of the bricks are not subjected to a detailed analysis the principles of natural justice is to be considered in this matter. The bricks were purchased for the construction of Bio Gas Plant as admitted by the opposite party. The documents produced by the opposite party further shows that the complainant had a desire to construct a Bio Gas Plant. Arrangements were done by him for the same. The country bricks sold by the opposite party to the complainant are not of standard quality and it is an unfair trade practice. The point No.1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2: According to Ext. C1 and from the depositions of the Advocate Commissioner the bricks were purchased by the complainant were heaped in the site unused. As far as the complainant is concerned he is not intending to use those bricks for construction purpose. The contentions of the opposite party that the bricks found in the site of the complainants premises do not belong to him is not reasonable. Both the parties are living at distance of 250 meters. The opposite party can take back bricks sold to the complainant. If<br /> Contd.....5<br /> .5.<br /> there is any lesser in number of bricks of 5000, the opposite party can reduce the proportionate<br /> amount from Rs.8000/-basing on the price calculated at the time of sale. The opposite party has to refund the value of the bricks calculated at in the rate at the time of purchase and the amount in proportion to be given to the complaint. The point No.2 is also found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The complainant is directed to give back the opposite party the bricks purchased and the opposite party is directed to give the complainant the value of the bricks taken back at the rate in the time of sale. If the bricks are lesser than 5000 in number the opposite party has to deduct the amount proportionately from the price. The opposite party is also directed to give Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) towards the cost of this proceedings. This order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on the day of 16th June, 2008.