Haryana

Sonipat

193/2014

ANIL KUMAR S/O RAMESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. MOHIT TRADERS,2. SHIV BUILDING MATERAILS SUPPLIER,3. JAI PARKASH ASSOCIATES - Opp.Party(s)

RISHI MALIK

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.193 of 2014

                                Instituted on:04.08.2014

                                Date of order:10.08.2015

 

Anil Kumar son of Ramesh Kumar, resident of Shiv Colony, Devru road, near Sevadham, Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Mohit Traders, Main road, Adarsh Nagar, behind Baba Cinema, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.Shiv Building Material Supplier, Devru road, near Rishi kul School, Sonepat through its Prop. Deepak Saini.

3.Jai Parkash Associates Ltd. manufacturer of JP Cement having Regd. And Corp. office Sector 128, Noida, UP, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                     ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Rishi Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Devender Malik Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased 40 bags of cement for construction of his house through respondent no.2 on 25.4.2014 at the rate of Rs.300/- per bag.  The complainant also purchased 75 cement bags from respondent no.1 on 12.5.2014 of JP Cement PPC at the rate of Rs.265/- per bag.  Due to supply of substandard quality of cement, the construction done by the complainant was cracked and lintel also got cracked and water started falling down from the lintel on the very next day. The complainant made a complaint in this regard to the respondents, but of no use.  Rather the Engineer Kashish Sharma, Area manager and Shiv Building Matrial said that you can got tested the quality of cement from any lab.  The complainant got tested the cement supplied by the respondents from Micro Engineering and Testing Lab and they found that the cement used in the construction is of substandard quality.  But despite this, the respondents have refused to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        The respondents appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted that the complainant has not take any precaution for the construction of slab during casting.  The cracks on the roof slab were plastic shrinkage cracks which appear because of poor workmanship and using of improper shuttering.    The surface water in concrete evaporates very rapidly which is the main reason for these cracks.  To avoid such condition, the complainant should have protected the fresh concrete from dry winds and direct sunlight by providing suitable covers/shades and starts early curing which the complainant has failed to do.   As per the complainant, he purchased 115 bags of cement from respondent no.1 and 2.  The slab was constructed by using only 35 cement bags.  The complainant has not made any complaint regarding the substandard quality of remaining 80 bags which clearly establishes that the cracks on the  roof slab which was constructed by using 35 cement out of 115 cement bags were due to poor workmanship by using improper shuttering and by not taking requisite precautions.  The engineer of the respondent no.3 received the complaint and the same was attended on the same day. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          The respondent no.3 in their written statement has submitted that the entire allegations leveled by the complainant are with an intention to extract money from the respondent no.3.  The complainant has failed to provide any specific batch number of the cement used for the purpose of said construction.   There is no evidence that Jaypee cement has been used by the complainant for his construction.  The test sample had not been obtained by the complainant in the presence of the respondent no.3.   The Area Manager of the respondent no.3 visited the site on 14.5.2014 and discussed the issue with the respondent.  The complainant was not able to understand the real problem, but he was only insisting for compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to substandard quality of cement supplied by the respondents, the construction done by the complainant has collapsed thereby causing a huge loss to the tune of Rs.8 lacs.  He further submitted that  the complainant got the sample of cement tested from Micro Engineering and Testing Lab and they found that the cement used in the construction is of substandard quality. So, the respondents are liable to pay the amount of Rs.8 lacs as compensation to the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has not take any precaution for the construction of slab during casting.  The cracks on the roof slab were plastic shrinkage cracks which appear because of poor workmanship and using of improper shuttering.    The surface water in concrete evaporates very rapidly which is the main reason for these cracks.  To avoid such condition, the complainant should have protected the fresh concrete from dry winds and direct sunlight by providing suitable covers/shades and starts early curing which the complainant has failed to do.   As per the complainant, he purchased 115 bags of cement from respondent no.1 and 2.  The slab was constructed by using only 35 cement bags.  The complainant has not made any complaint regarding the substandard quality of remaining 80 bags which clearly establishes that the cracks on the  roof slab which was constructed by using 35 cement out of 115 cement bags were due to poor workmanship by using improper shuttering and by not taking requisite precautions.  The engineer of the respondent no.3 received the complaint and the same was attended on the same day. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents.

          In the present case, at the time of arguments, Shri Kashish Sharma Engineer of the respondent no.3 was present.  On the asking of this Forum, Shri Kashish Sharma has admitted that he has visited the premises of the complainant on 14.5.2014, but he did not note down the batch numbers of the cement bags lying in the premises of the complainant.  In our view, it is a very serious lapse on the part of the Engineer of the respondent no.3 that despite having his visit at the premises of the complainant, he did not take any sample of the cement or mixture or any debris.  He even did not note down the batch number of the cement bags.

          In the present case, the complainant has not only produced the report issued by Micro Engineering and Testing Laboratory, but has also led cogent and elaborate evidence by producing the photographs.  The complainant has also produced the bills Ex.C1 and  Ex.C2 regarding purchase of cement bags. From the above evidence led by the complainant and taking into consideration the report of Micro Engineering and Testing Lab, it is proved that due to supply of sub-standard and inferior quality of cement, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss. 

          The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, which in our view is on  a very higher side, excessive and exorbitant.  In our view, Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) in lumpsum would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as directed above for supply of substandard and inferior quality of cement, for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)          (DV Rathi)               (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF          Member DCDRF                 DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  10.08.2015