DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2023
Filed on: 08/03/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C. C No.111/2018
COMPLAINANT
Rahul M., S/o Mohanan, Sreebhavan, Nandiattukunnam , North Paravoor -683513
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, court Road, Muvattupuzha 686661)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. M/s Radiant Roofing Solutions, Airport Road, Paravur Manjaly, Ernakulam Dist.-683520, Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. M/s New Steel World, Airport Road, Thekkethazham, Mannam P.O North Paravoor-683520, Rep. by its Managing Partner.
(OP 1&2 Rep. by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, HB 48, Panampilly Nagar Kozhi 682036)
3. M/s Aman Associates, 1st floor, Royal Plaza, Bridge Road, Aluva- 683101.
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 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that they had purchased 2424.50 sq. ft. GC colour and allied items from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.71399/- on 21. 12. 2017 for roofing his house by believing the oral and written assurance in the brochure supplied by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties to the effect that the sheets are of superior quality and free from breakage or leak. It was laid over his house by spending Rs. 50,000/- towards labour charges. The 3rd opposite party is the supplier of the PPGL coils used for manufacturing the sheets. While so, the complainant noticed small holes all over the entire sheets soon after laying. Thereby the very purpose of the lying of the sheets has been defeated. The presence of small holes in the entire sheets is due to the manufacturing defect of the sheets supplied by the opposite parties. The supply of inferior quality and defective roof sheets amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The entire sheets need to be replaced with superior quality sheets for providing better protection of the house from rain and heat. The re-laying of new sheets needs labour charges to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Though the matter was taken up with the 1st and 2nd opposite parties nothing was done by them to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence the complainant was compelled to serve lawyer notice to them. Instead of settling the matter, they gave a reply stating that they have done the profiling of the color-coated sheets supplied by the 3d opposite party. The complainants had approached the commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 64513/- which he paid towards the price of the sheets along with interest, to pay Rs. 50, 000/- towards the amount needed for relaying the sheets, to pay Rs. 1,00000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardships, and financial loss suffered by him due to the supply of inferior quality roofing sheets by the opposite parties and the cost of the litigation.
2) Notice
Notices was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice and the first and second opposite parties filed their versions.
3) VERSIONS OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
The complaint regarding the purchase of GC colour Trafford sheets and allied items on 21.12.2017 for Rs. 71,399/- from the second opposite party by the complainant is incorrect. In fact, the said purchase was made by one Mr. Jayakumar, a contractor carrying on business at Vadakkekara P.O., North Paravur. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not the manufacturers of PPGL coils used for profiling of roofing sheets. The averment that the complainant spends Rs. 50,000/- for laying the GC colour Trafford sheets is absolutely false and hence denied. There are small holes all over the entire sheets soon after laying is absolutely false and stoutly denied by opposite parties 1 and 2. This is a false allegation. Admittedly even at the time of laying complainant has not disputed the quality of the GC colour Trafford sheets. A false story is made by the complainant that "complainant noticed small holes all over the entire sheets soon after laying". It is reliably learned that there is some dispute between the complainant and his contractor Mr. Jayakumar regarding the execution of the work. And opposite parties 2 and 3 are made scapegoats in the dispute between the complainant and his contractor. The allegation in paragraph 2 of the consumer complaint that due to manufacturing defects, the entire sheets are having small holes is absolutely false and stoutly denied by opposite parties 1 and 2. The allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice alleged against opposite parties 1 and 2 are false and hence denied. The entire sheets laid require to be replaced for protection to the house from rain and heat is false and hence denied. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- is required towards labour charge is also misleading, false and hence denied. The further allegation that the issue was taken up with opposite parties 1 and 2 and they have not done anything to redress the grievance of the complainant is false and hence denied. The complainant or Sri. Jayakumar has not contacted opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding any complaint in the GC colour Trafford sheets. Opposite parties 1 and 2 on receipt of the lawyer notice have issued a reply lawyer notice dated 26.02.2018 clearly stating that there is no defect in the GC colour and opposite parties 1 and 2 are dragged into the dispute between the complainant and his contractor Mr. Jayakumar.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-4. Ex-Commission Report is also marked as Exhibit C-1.
Exhibit A-1-(series): True Copies of the retail invoices dated 9.11.2013 & 21.12.2017.
Exhibit A-2: True Copy of the brochure supplied by the opposite parties.
Exhibit A-3: Office copy of the lawyer notice sent to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Exhibit A-4: True Copy of the reply received from the 1st & 2nd opposite parties.
The first and second opposite parties had filed a proof affidavit.
5) 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?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, 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. The complainant produced copies of the retail invoices dated 9.11.2013 & 21.12.2017.
issued by the opposite parties to the complainants (Exhibit A-1(series). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The above case is filed by the complainant regarding the supply of inferior quality and defective roof sheets amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the 1st & 2nd opposite parties to the effect that the sheets are of superior quality and free from breakage or leak. It was laid over his house by spending Rs. 50,000/- towards labour charges. Exhibit A-1 to A-4 and C-1 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibit A-1 series is the tax invoices showing the purchase of the sheets from the 2nd opposite party. The sheets were purchased by believing the assurance given by the 1st opposite party in their brochure (Exhibit A-2). Though the 1st opposite party assured that the sheets manufactured by them are of superior quality there were pinheaded holes in several sheets as evidenced by Exhibit C-1. The commissioner further states that the defect can be caused due to manufacturing defect. He had assessed Rs. 16540/- for replacing the defective sheets. In paragraph No. 3 of the version filed by opposite parties 1& 2, it is stated that they have conducted a quality check of the sheets before delivering it to the complainant. Hence the burden is on the part of the opposite parties to produce the so-called quality check report. Since no such report has been produced it is clear that the sheets supplied by the opposite parties are of inferior quality.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 are only doing profile work of color-coated PPGL coils sold by reputed ISI and ISO-certified companies like M/s Bhushan, M/s Rainbow Plus, M/s Jindal, M/s Asian, M/s Utham Steels, etc. In this case, Mr. Jayakumar has insisted on relatively economical GC sheets colour which is having no warranty, and the PPGL coil supplied by the third opposite party. At the time of purchase itself Mr Jayakumar knew there is no warranty for the GC sheets colour Trafford. Before delivery each sheet was subjected to a quality check, and Mr. Jayakumar, the contractor was satisfied with the condition and physical appearance of the GC colour Trafford sheets. There are small holes all over the entire sheets soon after laying is absolutely false and stoutly denied by opposite parties 1 and 2. This is a false allegation.
It would be quite appropriate to quote here the relevant portion of the Inspection Report prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Buildings Sub Division Irinjalakuda-680 12, (Exhibit C-1):
“1. The present condition of the G.C. roof sheets erected over the house of the complainant.
Report
G.C. roof sheets laid over the building seems intact.
2. Report the present defects of the roofing sheets supplied to the complainant.
Report
It is seen that 4 sheets of 7 m length with 1.10-meter width show a pinheaded hole in it.
3. Report the reason for the pores appeared in the roof sheets.
Report
Since only a pin hole seen in the sheet a reason for this cannot be specifically mentioned.
4. Report whether the defects of the roofing sheet are due to inferior quality or not.
Report
It can be mentioned as manufacturing defect and the answer is in connection with the report mentioned in Question No.3.
5. Report the amount required for relaying the defective roofing sheets.
4 x 7 x 1.10 30.80 m2 537/m2 = 16,539.60 i.e.; 16540/-
Report
Hence the Cost for relaying the defective sheet is Rs. 16540/- 6. Other matters to be reported by the complainant at the time of inspection.
NIL.
Hence, I conclude here that, the defective 30.80 m2 sheet is to be replaced and the cost for replacing this is calculated based on the available market rate is Rs. 16540/-
50,000/- for laying the GC colour is absolutely false and hence denied.”
The complaint is regarding the supply of defective roofing sheets by the opposite parties. Believing the assurances given by the 1st opposite party in their brochure (Exhibit A-2). The sheets were purchased by the complainant in believing the assurance given as per (Exhibit A-2). Their claim that the sheets manufactured by them are of superior quality. This assurance given by the 1st opposite party was in vain.
As per Exhibit C-1, “It is seen that 4 sheets of 7 m length with 1.10-meter width show a pinheaded hole in it.” “It can be mentioned as manufacturing defect and the answer is in connection with the report mentioned in Question No.3.”
The Honrable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mercedes- Benz India Private vs Prince Bansal & 2 OR’s. on 30 May 2019, First Appeal No. 830 of 2019.
The NCDRC held that:
“The State Commission was fully justified in relying upon the expert report given by Professors of Punjab Engineering College (deemed University). They submitted a report that the problem in the vehicle still persisted and had not been removed. On relying of the said report NCDRC directed Mercedes Benz to pay Rs. 2 lakh to its customer as compensation for defects in the Mercedes vehicle.”
We have heard learned counsels appeared for the both sides. We have also perused the entire records and proceedings of the complaint. We have gone through the report of the Export Commissioner very carefully and in detail (Exhibit C-1). This report corroborates the complainant's allegations. The commissioner states that the defect can be caused due to manufacturing defect. No evidence has been produced by the opposite parties before the Commission to prove the allegations levelled by the complainant as false.
The opposite parties had 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:
i. The opposite parties shall refund Rs. 64,513/- which he paid towards the price of the sheets as per (Exhibit A-1(series).
ii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.16540/-towards the amount needed for relaying the sheets as per (Exhibit C-1).
iii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the loss and mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
iv. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties 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 @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of April, 2023
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-(series): True Copies of the retail invoices dated 9.11.2013 & 21.12.2017.
Exhibit A-2: True Copy of the brochure supplied by the opposite parties.
Exhibit A-3: Office copy of the lawyer notice sent to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
Exhibit A-4: True Copy of the reply received from the 1st & 2nd opposite parties.
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
DEPOSITION
C1: Commission Report
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 111/2018
Order Date: 26/04/2023
