Haryana

Sonipat

140/2014

MAHABIR SINGH S/O DHARAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TUSHIR BUILDERS,2. THAT MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI RAM NIRMAN CEMENT - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH DULL

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.140 of 2014

                             Instituted on:21.05.2014

                             Date of order:12.10.2015

 

Mahabir Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of village Juan, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.Tushir Builders, Gohana road, Main Byepass Chowk, Sonepat through its Prop. Sanjay son of Ram Chander.

2.The Managing Director Shri Ram Nirman Cement, Shri Ram Cement Works, Kota, Rajasthan.

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Dhull, Advocate for Complainant.

           Ms. Suman Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Jitender Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 19.3.2014, the complainant for the construction of his house, has purchased 50 bags of cement from respondent no.1 i.e. Rs.330/- per bag for Rs.16500/-.  The said cement purchased by the complainant was manufactured by respondent no.2.  The complainant used the cement purchased from the respondent no.1 for construction purposes i.e. lintel etc.  When the support of lintel was removed after the lapse of 21 days i.e. on 9.4.2014, the slab of the house was collapsed due to inferior quality of the cement.  The complainant has spent Rs.5 lacs for construction of his house. The complainant made a requested to respondent no.1 to compensate him for supplying the inferior quality of cement, but of no use.  However, one sample was taken by the Engineer of the respondent no.2, but till date, the respondents have not given any satisfactory reply regarding the inferior quality of cement and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and they have filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 has submitted in its reply that the cement manufactured by the respondent no.2 are of impeccable quality which has got huge demand in the market.  The cantilever slab did not fell because of standard cement as alleged by the complainant, but it was because the complainant and his contractor did not follow the quality standards and mixture of cement, sand and gitty was not as per IS 456:2010 standards.  The authorized person of respondent no.2 was sent to the construction site of complainant for investigation of the matter. Shri Yuvraj Verma was appointed by the respondent no.2 who inspected the site of the complainant on 9.4.2014 and sample was taken and details regarding the defects were given which was due to design fault, voids in concrete, de-shuttering period was only for 10 days whereas it should be atleast 14 days and there was wrong masonary work etc.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1 since there is no deficiency in service on his part.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has also submitted that the cement manufactured by the respondent no.2 are of impeccable quality which has got huge demand in the market.  The cantilever slab did not fell because of standard cement as alleged by the complainant, but it was because the complainant and his contractor did not follow the quality standards and mixture of cement, sand and gitty was not as per IS 456:2010 standards.  The quality of cement is ensured by carrying out physical and chemical tests.  Shri Yuvraj Verma was appointed by the respondent no.2 who inspected the site of the complainant on 8.4.2014 and sample was taken and details regarding the defects were given which was due to design fault, voids in concrete, de-shuttering period was only for 10 days whereas it should be atleast 14 days and there was wrong masonary work etc.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.2 since there is no deficiency in service on his part.

3.        We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that due to supply of poor/lower and substandard quality of cement, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs.  It is further submitted while relying on the report of Micro Engineering and Testing Lab that the alleged sample of the cement did not comply with the specification as it should have been.  So, due to the act and conduct of the respondents, the complainant not only suffered a huge financial loss, but has also suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has also argued their case vehemently that the cement manufactured by the respondent no.2 are of impeccable quality which has got huge demand in the market.  The cantilever slab did not fell because of standard cement as alleged by the complainant, but it was because the complainant and his contractor did not follow the quality standards and mixture of cement, sand and gitty was not as per IS 456:2010 standards.  The quality of cement is ensured by carrying out physical and chemical tests.  Shri Yuvraj Verma was appointed by the respondent no.2 who inspected the site of the complainant on 8.4.2014 and sample was taken and details regarding the defects were given which was due to design fault, voids in concrete, de-shuttering period was only for 10 days whereas it should be atleast 14 days and there was wrong masonary work etc.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief and compensation.

          In the present case, Local Commissioner was appointed to report regarding the existing position of the house and to take sample of collapsed lintel  and also to take the sample form the sealed cement bags.   Shri Subhash JE visited the spot on 15.7.2014 and he submitted his report dated 16.7.2014 which is mentioned below:-

          “The Projection of the said house has fallen on the

Surface of land and rest lintel was sagged and it was supported by Girder and Ballies.  I have taken sample of collapsed lintel as well as sealed cement bags.”

 

Thereafter vide letter no.8270 dated 23.12.2014, the

Executive Engineer, Panchyati Raj, Sonepat informed this Forum that the samples have been sent to Micro Engg. And Testing Lab, HSIIDC, Rai and as per report of Micro Engg. And Testing Lab, HSIIDC, Rai, both the samples were not found according to the specifications. 

          In our view, from the above report, it is crystal clear that the cement manufactured by respondent no.2 and sold by respondent no.1 to the complainant was of substandard and inferior quality and due to this, the slab of the house was collapsed thereby causing a huge loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. 

          It is admitted by the respondent no.2 in his written statement that on receiving complaint from the complainant, the company appointed Shri Yuvraj Verma to inspect the site of the complainant.  He visited on 8.4.2014 on the site and brother of the complainant was found there. 

          In the present case there is a dispute that the cement of the respondent no.2 is of inferior quality.  Sh. Yuvraj Verma has failed to collect the sample of 4/5 bags which were lying at the spot. In our view, it was obligatory on the part of Yuvraj to take sample from 4/5 bags of cement which were lying at the spot and further to take the snap or make the videography to prove the batch number etc. of the cement bags, but the said Yuvraj has failed to do so. The report dated 18.4.2014 on which the respondent no.2 is relying upon is unsigned and is not supported by any affidavit. The respondent no.2 has even failed to produce the batch number of the cement before this Forum.  So, in our view, the respondent no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant for supplying the substandard and inferior quality of cement.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.5 lacs as loss suffered by him due to fall of slab due to the reason of poor quality of cement, Rs.50000/- for harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

          In our view, the above said amount as claimed by the complainant is on a very higher side, excessive and exaggerated.  But in our view, Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.one lac fifty thousand) would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent no.2. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.one lac fifty thousand) to the complainant  alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization for supply of inferior quality of cement to the complainant.  The respondent no.2 is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.2.

          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: 12.10.2015.