Complainant Manoj Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith  damage of other construction material and wastage of heavy amount on labour, loading of material and other related expenses. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that in the year 2016, the opposite party no.1 who is also resident of  his village and well known to him assured him that he is working in M/s. M S Construction as sales Manager which supplies good RCC material for construction purpose.  He believed on him and purchased RCC material value Rs.50,000/- from opposite parties for construction of the showroom in village Kalichpur. He has next pleaded that the opposite parties sent RCC material on their own vehicle alongwith their own labour and employees to put RCC material for the purpose of lintel of the showroom. He was raising already construction through Masson Sukhdev Singh son of Gurmit Singh of his village who also raised objection at that time, that RCC material is of not good quality and labourer is not properly trained to do this work but the opposite party again assured that there is no fault in their RCC material and in case of any defect they will be responsible for all loses. So the complainant and Sukhdev Singh were not allowed to raise any question at that time and labourer of opposite parties put lintel there as per their style of working.  He has next pleaded that to the utter surprise within 2 months, Lintel started leaking from many places.  He immediately approached the opposite parties, but he was always given false excuses and lastly refused to help him, rather threatened him not to come again by such requests. So he approached the Police authorities and moved application SSP, Gurdaspur on 11.05.2018 and both parties were called in the enquiry conducted in P.S.Dinanagar. The opposite party no.1 admitted that RCC material was purchased by him from  them. But refused to compensate the loss and gave lame excuse to further harassment. Ultimately, the Police instead of providing justice to him gave false report that he did not produce any purchase bill of RCC material, but the opposite party had already admitted that the RCC material was purchased from them then Police have no right to raise such objection. So due to influence of opposite parties, no action taken and the complainant is directed to file present complaint. Hence this complaint.  

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is highly time barred, hence the same is liable to be dismissed on this scored alone; the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the opposite party no.1 and the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Commission and has given the false and frivolous facts before this Hon'ble Commission. On merits, it was submitted that only the material was given to the complainant by the opposite party no.2 on his own vehicle and rest of the work was done by the labourer and masons employed by the complainant on the asking of the complainant. It was incorrect that the complainant was raising construction through mason Sukhdev Singh son of Gurmeet Singh of his village who also raised objection at that time, that R.C.C. Material is not of good quality and the labour is not properly trained to do this work. It was admitted that the complainant moved an application to the SSP Gurdaspur on 11.05.2019 and opposite party was also called and it was found by the officials that there is no fault of material and statement was recorded by the police official. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     As per report of Ahlmad notice issued to opposite party no.2 had been received back with the report of 'Refusal". Refused report of service conveys that opposite party no.2 had been served but it was intentionally evading the service of the notice. Case called several times but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Hence, opposite party no.2 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.5.2019.

5.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit  Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3.

6.     Alongwith the written statement ld.counsel for the opposite party no.1 has filed affidavit of Sh.Anil Kumar Ex.OPW-1.

7.        Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both parties.

8.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.      Present complaint filed by Manoj Kumar against opposite parties relates to purchase of RCC material which is ready to use for casting of slab at his Show Room. The R.C.C. material was supplied by opposite party M/s. M.S. Construction, Pathankot and after two months the roof started leaking. Complainant has approached the opposite party for redressal of problem and not getting suitable redressal of the grievance. He thereafter approached the local police. Based on the report of the police the complainant filed present complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

10.     The casting of RCC roof slab requires technical expertise and in the present case it was got done from local mason Sh.Sukhdev Singh son of Gurmit Singh. Though the material were supplied by opposite party to casting of roof slab involved various other technicalities aspect like steel laying, treatment post RCC etc., also placed a major role in life of RCC slab.

11.     In the absence of expert opinion it is difficult to determine the negligence/defect in the casting of the slab and hence attribute the cause to opposite parties. Hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

12.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                     (NaveenPuri)                                                                                                                                                  President   

Announced:                                                   (R.S.Sukhija)

August 25, 2022                                                  Member

*MK*