Haryana

StateCommission

A/1247/2017

J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LIMITED AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHANNA - Opp.Party(s)

NAVIN CHOWDHRI

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.1247 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 18.10.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 19.12.2022

Date of pronouncement: 18.01.2023

 

1.      J.K. Lakhshmi Cement Limited, Head Office Nehru House, 4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi through its lawful attorney Sh. R.K. Gupta, Head CSR.

2.      Krishan Bansal Iron Store, Near Amar Jyoti Public School, DN College Road, Hisar through proprietor Ravi Bansal.

…..Appellants

Versus

Dhanna @ Dhanraj age 55 years son of Sh. Sita Ram, Resident of Village Kanoh, Tehsil and District Hisar.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Navin Chiwdhri, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr. V.S. Kajla, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.1247 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 13.09.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.119 of 2015, which was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2012 complainant purchased 200 bags of J.K. Lakshmi Cement @ Rs.265/- per bag from opposite party (OP) No.1 for construction with assurance that the same was of high quality and there was no complaint.  He completed his construction in the month of February, 2013 while complying with all accepted specifications and using sufficient construction material in appropriate ratio and proportions of the said cement and spent Rs.20 lacs in his house. But in the month of January, 2015 the cement started giving up its strength and layers of the cement started coming out and house got damaged due to sub-standard cement. He approached technical expert who appraised him that the cement was defective and sub-standard quality and did not have adequate binding strength. He demanded compensation for his loss from the OPs, but, to no avail. Faced with this situation, he got issued legal notice dated 02.01.2015 but to no avail. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence this complaint.

3.      In its written version, OP No.1 raised preliminary objections with regard to complaint being time barred and allegations being false and frivolous. On merits OP No. 1 submitted that complainant has not disclosed the  brand/manufacturer of cement. The bill of the cement has not been issued by OP No. 1. Complainant alleged to have purchased some cement from Ravi Bansal Iron Store but OP No. 1 has no connection with such firm/dealer/seller and in the complaint M/s Krishan Bansal Iron Store has been mentioned. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 so the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.      In its written version, OP No.2 raised preliminary objections with regard to limitation and complaint being false and frivolous and assailed maintainability of complaint. On merits, OP No. 2 denied that complainant purchased 200 bags of cement vide bill No.7996.  The cement manufactured by OP NO.2 was of international standards and complies with the parameters. The OP has never received  any complaint with respect to the quality of the cement from  any consumer. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Hisar has allowed the complaint vide order dated 13.09.2017, which is as under:-

“When the report is read in the light of the photographs it proves the case of the complainant. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, the present complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the respondents jointly and severely to pay Rs.70,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of loss suffered by complainant along with harassment and mental agony etc.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh. Navin Chiwdhri, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh. V.S. Kajla, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal as well as that of record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that receipt produced by the complainant has not been issued by appellant No.2 because complainant has purchased the cement from one Ravi Bansal Iron Store and the proprietor of appellant No.2 has no connection with Ravi Bansal Iron Store. There was a delay of more than one year and five months in preparation of the technical report submitted by the complainant as the inspection was carried out on 23.03.2015 and report was prepared on 24.08.2016. The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued that he purchased 200 bags of cement  from the opposite party No.1 manufactued by OP No.2. He spent 20 lacs on construction.   In the month of January 2015 cement of the house of complainant started loosing its strength on account of its being sub standard. Learned counsel  for the respondent  has further argued that he approached technical expert, who mentioned in this report that cement was defective and sub standard.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant.

10.    It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the cement  vide invoice Ex.P-I  from the opposite party. As per Building Technical report Ex. P-4 for House of Sh.Dhanraj, there were cracks in the floor, Roof terrace and wall depicted in photos.  The technical report further mentioned that it was not repairable since dangerous structural cracks have developed in walls and roof of the complainant’s house. Since the technical report mentioned that the whole plaster has also lost its strength. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 13.09.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the Dhanna @ Dhanraj-complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.    File be consigned to record room.

 

18^rd January, 2023              Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)