DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2024

                          Filed on: 29/03/2021

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                  Member                                                        

CC NO. 157/2021

Between

COMPLAINANT

Siby Antony, S/o. T.C. Antony, Thekkedath House No. 2/557, Kalloorkad P.O., Muvattupuzha 686668.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

Manager, CSM Steels, Chakkungal Arcade, Market Road, Muvattupuzha P.O., Ernakulam 686673.

FINAL ORDER

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

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

The complainant had purchased around 2000 sq. ft. roofing sheet plus related accessories from the opposite party on 21/05/2012, 21/06/2012 and on 26/02/2012 worth Rs.1,80,000/-. Using the said roofing sheets complainant had completed the work of the 2^nd floor of his house. The colour of the roofing sheet started to fade from the year 2017 onwards and gradually the colour became totally lost from 2020 onwards. The paint was totally gone and the roofing sheets are discoloured and appeared dirty. The complainant had spent around Rs.4,00,000/- for completing the 2^nd floor by using these roofing sheets and now the colour coating on the top of the sheets are completely destroyed and the sheets are looking unusable. The complainant states that he had spent his huge money for the purchase of the roofing sheets and the opposite party had provided damaged products to the complainant and due to the deficient action of the 1^st opposite party the complainant had to suffer huge mental agony, pain and other hardships. The complainant had sent a notice to the opposite party on 09/01/2021 narrating all the events. But the opposite party had replied that the said notice is not legally binding and they do not provide any warranty on the products which are sold and for that the complainant should approach the Tata Company. The complainant states that the seller is obliged to replace the defective products as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant states that the opposite party should replace the damaged product and new roofing sheets should be fixed in its place at free of cost. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice :

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 05/05/2021. Notice sent to the opposite party served on 24/05/2021. But the opposite party not appeared before the Commission to contest the case. No version is seen filed by the opposite party. Consequently opposite party was set as ex-parte in the matter.

3. Evidence:

Evidence in this complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 (series) to A4. No oral evidence from the part of the complainant. Being ex-parte, no evidence from the part of opposite party.

4. Issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows:

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of opposite parties towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered Issue no. (1) (2) together.

Exbt. A1 (series) are the bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 25/01/2012 for Rs.17,585/- issued to the complainant on 21/01/2012 for Rs.57,715/- and on 21/05/2012 for Rs.93,350/- including the VAT amount Exbt. A1 also includes an estimate of Rs.5,925/-. Exbt. A2 is the photographs of the defective sheets. Exbt. A3 is the copy of the notice sent to the opposite party by the complainant on 09/01/2021. Exbt. A4 is the reply of the notice sent by the opposite party through Adv. M.M. Ansar to the complainant dated 18/01/2021. In the reply notice opposite party stated that they are only the dealers of the steel, roof sheets and not the manufacturers. Opposite party states that in the instant case the manufacturing company has not offered a guarantee and hence the opposite party has not given any assurance about the quality of the roofing sheets. The opposite party also admitted that the opposite party had given the roofing sheets to the complainant as per the bills to the complainant on the request of the complainant. The complainant was instructed by the opposite party to contact the manufacturers of the roofing sheets ie. Tata Steels also.

We have analyzed the facts of the case with the available evidence filed by the complainant. The case of the complainant that the roofing sheets supplied by the opposite party to the complainant became defective within a short period after the date of purchase and the opposite party had not replaced the damaged roofing sheets with new roofing sheets eventhough a notice narrating all the facts are sent to the opposite party and there was a warranty of 25 years was provided by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant states that the opposite party had assured to the complainant that the roofing sheets purchased by the complainant are of having superior quality. But now the colour coating of the roofing sheets faded. Even though notice was sent to the opposite party by the complainant they had not replaced the damaged roofing sheets. The opposite party’s contention is that the complainant should approach the manufacturing company for getting the replacement benefit or repair benefit to the complainant.

Eventhough the complainant had produced the photo of the damaged product, the warranty provided by the opposite party or manufacturer of the product is not produced in this case. The complainant states that the opposite party had provided 25 years warranty to the product. But warranty is not produced by the complainant. We here perused the bills also. There is no mention in the bills that ’25 years warranty’ is provided. Moreover the manufacturer of the product is not impleaded in this case. The opposite party in their reply notice dated 18/01/2021 informed the complainant that he can approach the manufacturing company regarding the quality of the products. But the complainant has not taken any steps to implead the manufacturer. Since the manufacturer is not impleaded in this case, the matter was not communicated to the manufacturer through notice from this Commission and could not get their response.

The complainant was absenting from the 1^st posting date of the case. After filing the cace he has not turned up on all the hearings of the case. The complaint was filed as per Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has filed 4 documents along with the complaint and the Commission marked the four documents without the presence of the complaint since he is absenting continuously. The complainant was informed to appear before the Commission on 27/02/2023 and then only the complainant appeared before the Commission and filed a proof affidavit and argument notes.

In the argument notes, the complainant states that 25 years warranty was provided by the opposite party. The complainant also states that he had purchased roofing sheets plus accessories for Rs.1,80,000/- and had spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards the construction cost of the 2^nd floor of his house including the labour charges. As per Exbt. A1 series, he had purchased items worth Rs.1,68,655/- only form the opposite party. An estimate worth Rs.5,925/- was also provided. But it can’t be considered as a bill. Evidence showing the labour cost also not produced by the complainant. In the photographs filed by the complainant the colour of the roofing sheets are seen faded. But no expert opinion regarding the quality of product is not produced here. Guarantee/warranty of the product also not produced. The onus of proof of deficiency is upon the complainant who alleges it.

In a catena of decisions it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant’s case. In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.

In light of the above observations made by the Commission, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The failure to provide substantial evidence or to attend the proceedings has weakened his case.  Hence issue No. (1) and (2) are found not in favour of the complainant.

The case presented by the complainant is not supported by sufficient documents and hence there is no merit in the case and hence liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 27^th day of March, 2024.

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

D.B.Binu, President

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s evidence

Exhibit A1 (Series) :       Copy of the bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant

Exhibit A2:           Photographs of the defective sheets.

Exbt. A3:    Copy of the notice sent to the opposite party by the complainant on 09/01/2021

Exbt. A4:    Copy of the reply of the notice sent by the opposite party

Opposite party’s evidence

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                       

kp/

CC No. 157/2021

Order date:  27/03/2024