Kerala

Idukki

CC/359/2016

Michel Michel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager George and George Computers - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :20/12/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of September 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 359/2016

Between

Complainant : Machael Machael,

Edamulayil House,

Avely P.O., Muvattupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,

George & Company,

Vengalloor P.O., Thodupuzha – 685 584.

2 . The Manager,

Head Office, George & Company,

ST Nagar, Thrissur- 680 001.

(Both by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased blue colour roof sheets from the first opposite party company branded as Geo roof for 2400 sq.feet of his building terrace by paying Rs.65,700/- in January 2015. At the time of purchase the first opposite party assured its quality and long lasting durability in colour and material. The opposite parties further assured that colour of these sheets are non-fading and more over fungus free. The total cost incurred to the complainant for fixing these sheet upon his terrace was Rs.90,000/- including labour. At the time of purchase the first opposite party confirmed that these sheets are manufacturing and marketing by themselves under the branded 'Geo Roof'.

 

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

Within 10 months of fixing the sheet, complainant noticed that the colour in some of the sheet are faded and immediately he informed the matter to the first opposite party. In the result the engineer of the second opposite party visited the scene and after convincing the matter they took photographs of the faded part of the roof and agreed to cure the defect. Since there was no response from the part of the opposite parties for a long period, complainant contacted them and the opposite parties offered a megre amount as compensation in the month of December 2016.

 

Complainant further averred that he purchased sheet from the first opposite party of dark blue colour (Peppy Blue) and out of the total sheets colour of 80% sheets are faded and some of the sheets are looks light blue and some of the sheets having blue and white colour and it deteriorated the total view and beauty of the building.

 

The complainant further averred that at the time of purchase opposite parties confirmed the quality and durability of the product. By believing the words of the first opposite party complainant purchased this materials. But instead of the assurance of the first opposite party the majority of the sheets are faded and it caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Selling of such inferior quality of materials on the pretext that of good quality is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Against this the complainant approached this Forum for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite parties replace the faded sheet with good quality materials or direct the opposite parties to pay the purchase price of the material along with labour cost and also direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version admitting the purchase of roof sheets from the first opposite party. But the opposite parties denied the averments that they has not given any assurance or promise to the colour or durability of the alleand cash bill dated 01/01/15 and copy of photographs are marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 respectively. Commission report was marked as Ext.C1.

 

(Cont.....3)

 

-3-

From the opposite parties side one Bibin, Manager of opposite parties company was examined as DW1.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through the documents. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Geo Roof sheet along with its other fixing materials from the first opposite party shop on 01/01/15 for an amount of Rs.62,700/-. It is evident from Ext.P1 cash bill. The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that major portion of the roof sheet are faded within 10 months from the date of purchasing. For substantiating their plea, Forum appointed an Expert Commissioner as they ged material. Opposite parties further contented that they are unaware about the financial expenses incurred by the complainant for passing the roof sheets. Opposite parties further contented that this sheet is manufactured by a company named Asian Colour Coated Lspat Ltd., situated in Maharashtra and this manufacturer is a necessary party in this complaint. Opposite parties specifically given the address of the alleged manufacturer of the sheets. Opposite parties further contented that the allegation that the sheet was faded within 10 months of its purchase is false and baseless. Since, if it was a true fact, the complainant must have to approach this Forum against the opposite parties much earlier. More over no body from the company was inspected the structure and has not took any photograph or has not given any offered as averred in the complaint. Opposite parties further contented that the colour fading of this sheet may occur due to the contact of cement, acid etc. More over the roofing sheet having no warranty and opposite parties has not given any assurance of its durability and long lasting. Hence the allegation leveled against the opposite parties have not withstanding and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Along with the complaint the complainant filed a petition for appointing an expert in this field for preparing a site mahazar, report and estimate. This petition

(Cont.....4)

-4-

was allowed and Assistant Engineer, LSGD, Avoly, Muvattupuzha was appointed.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 prayed for and the expert commissioner after conducting thorough inspection filed Ext. C1 report.

 

On the other side the learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the sheet material is manufactured by one Asian Colour Coated Lspat Ltd., S.No.18/3, Khopoli Pali Road, Dahivali, Khalapur Raigad, Maharashtra. They are delivering this product to the opposite parties and opposite parties are only selling this product. Hence the manufacturer is liable for answering any defect of this product and the manufacturer is a necessary party. Thus complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. The counsel further contented that this alleged material is having no warranty and the opposite parties has not given any assurance of its colour or durability such contention are baseless and unsustainable. He further argued that the report of the expert commissioner is biased, the expert commissioner filed report without assessing the actual facts. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

On going through the evidence on record and the point of arguments, it is seen that the main argument put forwarded by the opposite parties that, the complaint is bad for non-jointer of the manufacturer of the product. Hence it is pertinent to note that, even though the opposite parties pointed out the address of a firm which is functioning in Maharashtra, as the supplier of Geo roof sheets, no corroborating evidence is produced before the Forum to substantiate their version. If the alleged company is the manufacturer of the Geo roof sheet, opposite parties must have its purchase details. But opposite parties miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to convince that the manufacturer which is stated in the reply version is the actual party who is liable to redress the grievance of the complainant.

 

In this case it is also noted that the name of the product is Geo Roof Sheet and the name of the company which is selling their product in George & Company. On going through the complainant and reply version, it is very clear that the George & Company, purchases row materials from some where and they

(Cont.....5)

-5-

sells it as finished products under the branded name “Geo Roof Sheets”. This fact strengthen the deposition of DW1, none other than the manager of the first opposite party. He categorically stated that the opposite party's company purchased coloured sheet cocks and convert it in to finished roof sheet in different measurements. The public knows only the brand Geo Roof Sheet, which is a finished product of opposite parties company and only the opposite parties company having consumer relationship with its customer. Hence the defense of non- joinder of necessary party raised by the opposite parties cannot be sustainable.

 

Then regarding the quality of sheet it is admitted that the complainant purchased it from the first opposite party on 01/01/15 and he lodged the complaint on 20/12/16. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that it is believable that the complainant had intimated this matter to the first opposite party and it is usual that complainant is waited for some months and as a last resort he approached this Forum for redressing his grievances. This delay is caused may be due to the non co operation of the opposite parties. It is also believable that the authorized person of opposite parties had inspected the scene, Rival contention of the opposite parties cannot be admissible since it lacks clear and cogent evidence.

 

Then regarding findings of the Expert Commissioner. Expert Commissioner in Ext.C1 report specifically stated that he found that almost all the sheets paved on the roof are faded. Out of these sheets nearly 10 sheets are looking in its original colour. The expert further noted that “വീടിന്റെ ഇരിപ്പ് റോഡിൽ നിന്നും current view അല്ല അതിനാൽ ഭംഗിക്കുറവ് പെട്ടെന്ന് ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ പെടില്ല, എന്നാൽ പല ഷീറ്റും പല കളറായതിനാൽ ഭംഗിക്കുറവ് ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ട്”. This observation of the commissioner clearly shows that the different coloured roof sheet slightly affected the beauty of the house. It may cause some mental agony to the complainant. Even though the opposite parties filed an objection to this commission report no effort was taken to examine the commissioner as a witness to strengthen their contention in the objection to the commission report.

 

On the basis of above discussion Forum is of a considered view that the products which was sold by the opposite parties in question in bearing some

(Cont.....6)

-6-

defects and it is reported by an expert in the field. But the complainant miserably failed to produce any evidence to convince the Forum that whether he sustained such a loss as pleaded in the complaint. Opposite parties is miserably failed to adduce any clear and cogent evidence to counter the assessment of the commissioner.

 

It is also taken into consideration that the expert visited and inspected the scene on 17/04/18, ie after 28 month of alleged purchase of the sheets. It may cause some colour fade naturally hence the Forum is not considering the assessment of the expert as a whole.

 

Under the circumstances Forum found that some of the sheets which is paved the roof of the complainant is having some defects and the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant to that extent. Hence complaint allowed in part. Opposite party 1 is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation in addition to it Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall bear 12% interest from the date of default till its realization.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of September, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....7)

 

 

-7-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Machael Machael

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Bibin

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Cash bill dated 01/01/15

Ext.P2 - Copy of photographs

Ext.C1 - Commission report

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT