O R D E R

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-

The gist of the case is as follows:

The Complainant purchased 11000 bricks from the 1^st Opposite Party at the rate of Rs. 7/- per brick. The 1^st Opposite Party was introduced to the Complainant by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the bricks were purchased for the construction of Complainant's house. The Opposite Parties delivered the bricks at the site and the Complainant paid the entire of the bricks ie Rs.76,000/-.

2. Out of 11000 bricks, 6500 bricks were used for the construction of the first floor and the balance 4500 bricks were kept for the 2^nd floor. These 4500 bricks were got damaged in the first rain itself. The used bricks also were found defective and of low quality. The Complainant had to demolish 25% of the walls constructed using these bricks. The matter was informed to the Opposite Parties. 1^st Opposite Party visited the site and agreed to repay Rs.76,000/- the price of bricks. But the 1^st Opposite Party has not repaid the amount till the date. Hence the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant Rs.76,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and other cost.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version, the 1^st Opposite Party stated in his version that he has no responsibility for the quality of bricks. He is the owner of the Lorry KL 12/C 1595 which transported 6000 bricks to Vythiri as per the demand of 2^nd Opposite Party and one Tholan Ali, a broker. The bricks were manufacture by the 3^rd Opposite Party. The allegation that he has agreed to repay Rs.76,000/- in mediation is not correct. Therefore 1^st Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version stating that he runs a shop and arranges for the delivery of building materials. Some bricks manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party were displayed at the shop of 2^nd Opposite Party. Seeing these sample bricks, the Complainant ordered for 11000 bricks for his house construction. The bricks were delivered by the 1^st Opposite party at the work site in the vehicle arranged by 1^st Opposite Party himself. Then the 2^nd Opposite Party was informed about the low quality of bricks by the Complainant. The Complainant complained that the bricks kept aside for further construction was damaged in rain. As per the information given by the 2^nd Opposite Party, 1^st Opposite Party visited the site and was convinced about the matter. The 1^st Opposite Party agreed to repay the price of bricks before the mediators. However the 2^nd Opposite Party has no responsibility for the quality of bricks and he has no role other than introducing the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant. So, 2^nd Opposite Party prays that he may be exempted from any liability. The 3^rd Opposite Party also filed version stating that he has not sold any bricks to 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. He has no role in the dealing.

5. The Complainant was examined as PW1, documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the Complainant. One other witness was examined on the side of the Complainant as PW2. An expert Commissioner was appointed by the Forum to examine the quality of the bricks and was examined as CW1, the Commissioner's report was marked as Ext.C1. The 1^st Opposite party was examined as OPW1 and 2^nd Opposite Party was examined as OPW2. Documents were marked as Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the Opposite Parties.

6. The matters to be decided are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?

7. Point No.1:- PW1 and OPW2 narrates the same incident of purchase of bricks and the low quality of bricks sold by 1^st Opposite Party. There is no reason for 2^nd Opposite Party to stand against 1^st Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant. 1^st Opposite Party did not prove any enmity towards him or any other such reason for collaboration between the Complainant and OPW2. On the other hand, 3^rd Opposite Party was impleaded as per the version of 1^st Opposite Party. But in his cross- examination, 1^st Opposite Party says that he does not know the house or site of 3^rd Opposite Party. Above all, 1^st Opposite Party admits there was mediation between the parties, which he had denied in his version. PW2 also depose that he had mediated between 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant in relation to the matter in dispute. PW1, PW2, OPW2 affirm the same facts. About the number of bricks and about the price of bricks, PW1, OP2 and PW3 affirm the same facts.

8. The Expert Commissioner has taken sample bricks and compressive load test was conducted at material testing lab of Government Polytechnic College, Meenangadi. The test result was explained by the Commissioner. As per the report and deposition of the Commissioner it is evident that the bricks are substandard. Considering all these facts, the point No.1 is found against the 1^st Opposite Party.

9. Point No.2:- The complainant has used 6500/- bricks for the construction of his house. Though he says that 25% of the construction was demolished, no proof for that. Again in his proof affidavit the Complainant admits that 500 of the 4500 bricks set aside were used for the construction of staircase. Altogether 7000 bricks were used by the Complainant. The Complainant could not use 4000 bricks and he is entitled to get the price of 4000 bricks. He is also entitled to get compensation for mental agony and other difficulties.

Therefore, the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay the Complainant Rs.28,000/- (4000 x 7) as the price of the damaged bricks and Rs.5,000/- as compensation total Rs. 33,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three thousand only) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The 1^st Opposite Party is also directed to pay interest on the amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27^th February 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Hamza Complainant.

PW2. K.K.Krishnan. Business.

CW1. Kunjhi Mooza Demonstrator.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Joseph.V.U. Contract Work.

OPW2. Soopy. Business.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Lawyer Notice.

A2. Postal Receipts. dt:27.03.2009.

A3 (5 sheets) Copy of Plan.

C1. Inspection Report. dt:24.11.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Ownership Certificate. dt:09.02.2010.

B2. Copy of Agreement. dt:09.09.2009.