<br /> SRI,LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> On 13/12/2005 the complainant purchased 16 bags of cement manufactured by the Ist opposite party from the shop of the 3rd opposite party for plastering the roof of the complainant's house. The complainant did the roof plastering works on 14th and 15th of December and did the curing by flouting water on the roof. After one week, the complainant noted that the plastering of the roof has not set as usual. Several parts of the roof did not set. The cement mixture was loose in many parts of the roof. On noticing the defect, the complainant went to the 3rd opposite party's shop and intimated him about the same. Through the 3rd opposite party, the complainant contacted the Ist opposite party, Mr.P.M.Saji who is the Senior Sales Manager of the Ist opposite party. The manager visited the complainant's premises where the plastering was done and he instructed the complainant to continue the curing for 28 days. Even after the curing the cement mix did not set properly. The complainant several times tried to contact the Senior Sales Manager, but he did not respond. On the first week of January 2006, the complainant called the Senior Sales Manager of the Ist opposite party but nothing was done from their part. Subsequently, in order to test the quality of the cement the complainant again made a concrete slab at 2:2:1 ratio. Then also the cement did not set. For plastering the roof the complainant brought 16 bags of cement and due to its defect the complainant incurred the loss as stated below. Price of 16 bags of cement - Rs.2848/-, 3 jeep sand - Rs.2250/-, wages of 15 workers - Rs.2250/-, wages of 15 maison - Rs.3750/-, removing the plastering - Rs.2250/- total Rs.13348/-. The opposite parties at the time of selling the cement offered good quality cement and for that they received the price of the cement. They supplied poor quality cement which is not confirming to the minimum standard expected from good quality cement. All the loss was happened due to the manufactuuring defect of the cement supplied by the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed for compensation under various heads.<br /> <br /> 2. The Ist opposite party filed a written version. According to that the complainant may be called upon to produce substantial evidence to prove that he has purchased cement and that he has constructed a house and the cement mixed did not get a setting as usual. In order to get a usual setting the quality of sand, mixing of sand, water and cement coupled with efficiency of workmanship are very important. Unless the proportion is correct the work that much done will become mere waste. This opposite party upon request while at Chelachuvadu from the 3rd opposite party went to the spot for a local inspection on 17/12/2005. The opposite party could find that the workmanship was under quality at two portions approximately in an area of 10 sq.ft. each. On further enquiry the complainant said that he had collected a pool of water over the plastering work immediately after the plastering work was completed and that he further said though such care was taken the plasering work was damaged due to the poor quality of cement. It is stoutly denied that the opposite parties adviced to continue the curing works for 28 days. The opposite party strongly adviced the complainant to replaster the defective parts with skilled workers and defect in plastering was not due to quality of cement. This opposite party was not inclined to pay any money for the defect and negligence of the complainant. It is true that the complainant had telephoned to this opposite party. Cement is manufactured as per the Beauro of Indian Standard Norms(BIS). Cement is manufactured in a lot of 200 MT/Hr at this opposite party's factory. It comes to 4000 bags and it is supplied to various parts of Kerala and Tamilnadu. If a defect comes it will affect the entire 4000 bags.. No other complaint is reported in any area. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of Ist opposte party. <br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The complainant purchased the cement from the 3rd opposite party. Ext.P2 is a letter given by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant stating that on 13/12/2005 the 3rd opposite party delivered 16 bags of Ramco cement to the complainant which was supplied by the 2nd opposite party and the cash bill of the opposite party is produced as Ext.P1. So there is no dispute regarding whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. As per the version of the Ist opposite party and his evidence it is admitted that the cement mix did not set properly. By the request of the 3rd opposite party, the Ist opposite party inspected the building where the plastering was done by the complainant using cement and on his inspection the Ist opposite party noticed that there was defect in the plastering work of the complainant. Then the only dispute regarding the same is whether the defect in the plastering is caused because of the use of low quality cement or the work done is of poor quality by unskilled workers. DW1 is the manager of the Ist opposite party delivered that because of using unskilled labourers and not giving sufficient time for curing, this defect was occurred to the complainant's building. Also added that cement is manufactured in the company in a lot of 200 MT/Hrat the factory. It comes to 4000 bags and it is supplied on various parts of Kerala and Tamilnadu. If a defect comes it will affect the entire 4000 bags. As per evidence of PW1, the complainant's building was built-up by using Chettinadu cement and plastring of other parts of the building was also done by using Chettinadu cement. Ramco cement is used only in 600 sq.ft. area of the plastering of the building and there the defect is noticed. If there is a mistake on the part of the labourers the same defect would have been shown in all other parts also. The same skilled labourers and the same maison did the whole work of the building even concrete work. But no defect was noticed. There is no reaon to disbelieve the version of PW1, the complainant. The cement was sent for chemical analysis to National Institute of Technology, but it was returned stating that it cannot be possible because of the mechanical trouble. The factory is at Madras and the cement may became defective may be because of transportation or any other reason in the way. So we find that there is deficiency in service of the opposite party. But the rates noted by the complainant are very high and it cannot be believable. The maximum cement needed for plastering 600 sq.ft. may comes only 7 packets. But we think that it is fit to compensate for all the defective bags. 2 jeep sand is needed for the work. 3 workers and 3 maison are needed for the same. Removing of the plastering it may take only 3 or 4 persons work. So we fix a compensation for cement Rs.2,848/-, for sand Rs.1,500/-, for masion and workers Rs.750/- and Rs.450/- respectively and Rs.600/- for removing the plastering. The complainant is also entitled to the cost of this petition which we would limit to Rs.2,000/-.<br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite parties are directed to give Rs.6,148/- to the complainant for damages caused to him due to the defect in the cement and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 28th day of May, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />