DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 28^th day of December 2022

Filed on:

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri.V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member

C.C No.121/2022

COMPLAINANT

Dr. PT Mathew aged 80 years S/o Thomas, Peechattu House, Kothamangalam Pin-686691

(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. M/s Alstone international , 'ALSTONE HOUSE’, 2E/7, Jhandewalan Extension, Nerw Delhi-110055 ,Represented by its Managing Director

2. M/s.Skyline Systems & services, 33/24A ,Padivattom, Kochi-682024 , Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Parameswaran

F I N A L O R D E R

D.B.Binu, President.

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The complainant is the owner of a four storied building situated in Kothamangalam. The son of the complainant is running a dental clinic on the ground floor of the building and the upper floors are rented out as a lodge for earning the livelihood of the family of the complainant by means of self-employment. While so, the complainant purchased Alstone Aluminium composite panel sheets from the 2nd opposite party on 21.11.2012 for Rs. 1, 93, 536/- so as to fix it in the Ten years warranty provided by the 1^st opposite party. After three years, on the date of fixing the composite panel sheets, the complainant noticed colour fading and delamination of the sheets supplied by the opposite parties. Now the entire walls of the building are having ugly and shabby appearance. Thereby the complainant has been put into severe mental agony. The only remedy available for the complainant to remove the ugly appearance is to replace the panel sheets supplied by the opposite parties. In order to replace the panel sheets fixed in the entire building, he has to spend Rs. 5 lakhs. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the opposite parties. But no action was taken by them to replace the defective sheets. Thereafter lawyer notices were issued to the opposite parties. But nothing was done by them to redress the grievance of the complainant. The colour fading and the delamination of the panel sheets supplied to the complainant are due to the supply of defective and inferior quality composite panel sheets by the opposite parties. They are duty-bound to replace the sheets as per the warranty coverage issued by them. It is necessary to replace the entire sheets of the house so as to make the complainant's building beautiful. The supply of inferior quality products by making false representations and the omission to provide warranty coverage amounts to unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. The complainant has entitled to a refund of the price of the sheet and other allied items Rs. 1, 93, 563/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of purchase till realization. He is also entitled to Rs. 500000/- towards the labour charges for replacing the faded sheets. He is also entitled to Rs. 100000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the supply of inferior quality panel sheets by the opposite parties.

2) Notice

Notice was issued from the Commission to the first and second opposite parties and they received the notice but did not appear before the commission and did not file their version. Hence The first and second opposite parties set ex-parte.

3) Evidence

The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-4.

Exhibit A-1; Copies of the retail invoice dated 21.11.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party.

Exhibit A-2. Copies of the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party.

Exhibit A-3. Copy of the lawyer’s notice sent to the opposite parties.

Exhibit A-4. are the photograph of the building.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?

5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:

The complaint is regarding the colour fading and delamination of the composite panel sheets supplied by the opposite parties. The Complainant fall under the ambit of the definition of a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2 (7) a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.

In the present case in hand, the retail invoice dated 21.11.2022 shows payment of Rs. 1, 934, 536/- towards the price of the sheets. (Exhibits-A-1) Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. (Point No.i) goes against the opposite party.

The counsel for the complainant submits that the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party (Exhibit A-2) would show that the sheets were provided with 10 years warranty. Hence the grievance was raised within the warranty period. The Copy of the lawyer’s notice was sent to the opposite parties. (Exhibit A-3). The opposite parties didn't deny the case of the complainant either by giving a reply to the lawyer’s notice or by contesting the case before this Commission. the photographs of the building. (Exhibit A-4). Though notices were sent to the opposite parties they abstained from making appearances and hence they were set exparte. The evidence, in this case, consists of Exhibit A1 to A4.

We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties but did not file their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-prate. The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 4 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-4. All in support of their case. But the opposite parties did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-parte order passed against it.

The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).

The Opposite Parties have inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.

We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Parties shall refund the price of the sheet and other allied items Rs.1,93, 563/- to the complainant.

2. The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party.

3. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of December 2022

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A-1; Copies of the retail invoice dated 21.11.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party.

Exhibit A-2. Copies of the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party.

Exhibit A-3. Copy of the lawyer’s notice sent to the opposite parties.

Exhibit A-4. are the photograph of the building.

Opposite party’s Evidence : Nil