LTD. vs K.V. BHARATHAN

THIS appeal is preferred against the order of District Forum, Kasargod in O.P. No. 19/Ksd/93 dated 7th October,1993.

THE facts of case are as follows: THE complainant purchased 300 Nos. of 1st quality solid bricks from the appellant opposite party on 12.2.1992 for construction of water tank to his house at a cost of Rs. 645.50 with in six months, after construction, the tank started leaking. According to the complainant, the leakage was due to poor quality of the bricks. So on 24.10.92 he wrote a complaint to the opposite party alleging the poor quality of bricks and the leakage of the tank. It was dismantled before this visit and the representative examined the bricks remaining there. Another complaint sent to the opposite party on 24.11.92 where upon the complainant was orally called to opposite party''s factory and the opposite party offered to replace the defective bricks with new one. THE complainant asked for compensation, but the opposite party was not agreeable for payment of compensation. On these allegations complaint filed before the District Forum. The opposite party in his version admitted the supply of 300 bricks, but according to him they were solid 1st class quality bricks. He further averred that the complainant came to his factory and purchased the bricks after satisfying the quality of bricks himself. The opposite party also admitted that he got a complaint from the complainant about the leakage of the tank and the representative of the opposite party went to the site for inspection of the tank on 1.11.92. But when he went there, the tank had been pulled down by the complainant. The opposite party further stated, that bricks supplied by him were of superior quality and the company was having long standing business experience and good reputation. The complainant also not made any complaint regarding the quality of the bricks purchased by him at the time of construction of the tank. And the complainant approached the Forum after dismantling the tank and thereby destroyed the material evidence which is necessary for coming to a conclusion in the matter. He also says that the leakage if any may be due to the poor quality of cement, sand or poor workmanship. On the basis of these averments, he prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

In the District Forum, the complainant was examined as PW1:Al to A7 and MO1 were marked on his side. On the side of opposite party RW1 and RW2 were examined. The Mol the concerned brick was also examined by the Forum. No expert was examined to give opinion about the quality of the brick. Even the masons worked for the construction of the tank were not examined to corroborate the evidence of PW1 . The brick was not sent to any laboratory to ascertains quality. The District Forum believed the evidence of PW1 only on the ground that RWI in his evidence admitted that PW1 has no other ill feeling towards RW1.

WE have heard the arguments of both sides. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the leakage was due to the bad quality of bricks supplied by the opposite party. The leakage can be caused due to various reasons poor workmanship, bad cement, and also poor quality of bricks and also defective construction of the tank or improper plastering. There is no evidence to support the complaint of the complainant. The available evidence was destroyed by the complainant by dismantling the tank. No doubt MO1 brick produced by the complainant before the District Forum and the Forum has observed it was poor in quality. This observation is hardly sufficient to support the order as the brick has not been tested in any laboratory and no expert opinion has been obtained from any person about the quality of the brick supplied. The Counsel for the appellant even submitted that there is no evidence to show that MO1 is the brick supplied by the opposite party. There is nothing on record to fix the liability on the opposite party for the leakage of the tank. In these circumstances we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum. In the result, we set-aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal and dismiss the complaint. We direct the parties will bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed.