DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.486/2009
Sh. Kundan Lal
S/o Sh. Niranjan Lal
R/o House No.D-2/7, Ratia Marg,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062 ….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Birla Cement Corporation Ltd.
(through its Managing Director)
4th Floor, UCO Building
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
2. M/s Rajeshwar Dayal Anil Kumar Bansal
Agent, Manglam Cement & Birla Cement
244, Bansal Market, Devli Road,
Khanpur, New Delhi …...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 15.06.2009
Date of Order : 04.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he had purchased 300 bags of Birla Cement manufactured by OP No.1 from the OP No.1’s authorized agent OP No.2 vide invoice receipt No.7104, Book No.72 on 12.05.09 @ Rs.240/- per bag amounting to Rs.72,000/-. On receipt of goods from the OP No.1 it was revealed that each bag of cement was containing weight of 47 kgs. instead of authorized quantity of 50 kgs. The complainant informed about this fact to the OP No.1. Due to the said act five masons and 30 labourers engaged by him for carrying out the construction were held up due to which he suffered loss. The OP No.1 sent one Mr. Shushil Jain, Marketing Officer on 14.05.09 who got measured the bags of cement in the presence of OP No.2 and it was revealed that the bags were deficient in the quantity of 3 kgs. in each bag. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.25000/- due to deficient supply of cement, loss of manpower (mason and labourers) engaged by him whose wages were paid by him without any work. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to damages of Rs.1 lac from the OPs. Hence, pleading deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint for paying the above stated two amounts to him under the respective heads.
In the written statement OP No.1 has inter-alia stated that the company is registered in the name and style of M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. and not in the name of OP No.1. It is, however, submitted that the OP No.2 had ordered 200 bags of cement from M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. and the same were supplied in the name of OP No.2 vide delivery note/truck challan No.189 dated 12.05.09 by truck No.DL-ILE-9688 and as per instruction of the OP No.2, the 200 bags of Samrat Cement were off loaded out of which 100 bags were supplied to the complainant. Invoice No.00142 dated 12.05.09 for Rs.46800/- @ Rs.234/- per bag of cement inclusive of VAT was also raised in the name of OP No.2; thus it is crystal clear that the complainant had been supplied only 100 bags of cement by OP No.1 which falsifies the case of the complainant that he had been supplied 300 bags of Birla Cement on 12.05.09 by OP No.1. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is specifically denied that each bag contained 47 kgs. instead of 50 kgs. of cement. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the written statement OP No.2 has inter-alia stated that 100 bags of cement were off loaded by truck DL-ILE -9688 on 12.05.09 and the remaining 200 bags were delivered to the complainant from the stock of bags in the godown of OP No.2.
Complainant has not filed rejoinders to the written statements of OPs.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavits of Sh. Shushil Jain, Marketing Officer and Sh. Ramesh Kr. P.V., Senior Officer (Marketing) have been filed in evidence on behalf of M/s Birla Corporation Ltd.
No affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of the OP No.2. OP No.2 has been proceeded exparte.
Written have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments advanced at the bar and have also gone through the record very carefully.
The fact which stands proved on the record is that out of 300 bags of Birla Cement the complainant had been supplied 100 bags from Birla Corporation Ltd. and the remaining 200 bags of cement were supplied to him by OP No.2. According to the Complainant, Ex. CW-1/A is the copy of receipt issued by OP No.2. The same is in respect of 300 bags of cement sent to the complainant on 12.05.09 vide challan No.7104, Book No. 72. Ex.CW-1/B is the copy of receipt of weighing machine at Luxmi Dharam Kanta. The receipt is dated 15.07.09 and is in respect of 25 bags of cement in truck No. DL1LG 6011. The complainant had purchased 300 bags of cement from the OPs on 12.05.09. However, he got 25 bags of cement weighed from Luxmi Dharam Kanta on 15.07.09 i.e. after about more than 2 months. There is no evidence on the record which may even suggest that Sh. Sushil Jain, Marketing Officer of OP No.1 had visited the work place of the complainant on 14.05.09, got weighed the bags of cement in the presence of OP No.2 and found that each bag was containing 3 kgs less cement. In his affidavit, Sh. Sushil Jain, Marketing Officer of OP No.1 has denied this fact. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that the complainant had got the cement bags weighed on 14.05.09 or any other date prior to 15.07.09. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record to prove that the OPs had infact supplied 300 bags of cement each containing 47 kgs. of cement to the complainant on 12.05.09. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.05.2017
