BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 98 of 2011                                                                 

                                                         Date of Institution         :    25.4.2011

                                                          Date of Decision   :05.5.2016  

Vinod, aged 35 years  son of  Sh.Vijay Singh, r/o village Rupana alias Darba Khurd, Tehsil and distt. Sirsa.

                                         ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Balajee Eent Udyog (Brick Kiln), village Ding, tehsil and distt. Sirsa through its proprietor Dinesh Kumar.

                                                                         ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

          SHRI RAJIV MEHTA………..……MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh.M.M.Pareek,  Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Rishi Sharma, Advocate for  Opposite party.

                   ORDER

                    Case of complainants in brief, is that on the assurance given by Op that the bricks manufactured by it are of very good quality and are free from all type of salt or salt-peter,  the complainant started purchasing the bricks from May 2009 till the month of July, 2009 for construction of his house. He purchased bricks about 2 lacs bricks worth Rs. Five lakhs from Op. After completion of house, the complainant and his family shifted in the said newly constructed house, but after about three months, the plaster applied on the walls of the house started loosing and salt-peter started coming out of the walls.  The plaster left its place and beneath the plaster, the colour of the bricks was turned as white and now, the house of complainant is giving very bad look and its structure has been weakened. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Op, who refused to admit his claim. Hence, the present complaint  for a direction to Op for payment of price of bricks alongwith compensation for harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party contested the case by pleading that the Op manufactures various type of bricks as per requirements of its customer and sells and supplies the bricks to its customers as per their requirement.  The complainant was shown and displayed the bricks on his visit and he he was fully satisfied and convinced with the quality of bricks manufactured by Op. No such assurance was ever given to the complainant. The bricks sold and supplied to complainant were as per standard quality which were selected and order by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant purchased about 2 lacs bricks. Rest of the averments have also been denied.

3.                 In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1- his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2 to Ex.C17-parchi regarding receipt of bricks, , whereas, the opposite party has placed on record Ex.R1-supporting affidavit of its proprietor Sh.Dinesh Kumar; again Ex.R1-copy of ledger account.  

4.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5.                In the present case, it is admitted fact that the bricks were purchased by the complainant for construction of his house. The dispute between the parties is regarding the quality of bricks. The case of complainant is that the bricks supplied to him were of poor quality and were of salt petre due to which the structure of his newly constructed house has been weakened and huge amount incurred by him on the construction has been wasted. To the contrary, the stand taken by the Ops is that the complainant was shown various types of bricks and he was fully satisfied and convinced with the quality of bricks. There was no salt-peter in the bricks supplied to the complainant, rather the area where the complainant has manufactured his house, is highly water-logged. Thus, there was no defect in the bricks sold to the complainant.

6.                After perusing the record carefully, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not placed on record anything to prove that the bricks purchased by him were of poor quality.  He has placed on record only his self-serving affidavit, which is not sufficient to prove that the bricks were of salt-petre.  The stand taken by Op seems to be true that the area where the complainant has constructed house may be of water-logged. The complainant has told that he purchased bricks about Rs. Five  lacks, but from the perusal of ledger account Ex.R1 placed on record by Op, it is established that bricks of Rs.1,30,358/- were purchased by the complainant. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his stand and also any defect of goods.  

7.                Resultantly, it is very clear that there is no merit in this complaint.  Therefore, this complaint is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:   05.5.2016                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                               Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                         Member