BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2012                                                                 

                                                           Date of Institution         :    14.3.2012

                                                          Date of Decision   :    2.9.2016.

Jasbir Singh son of Shri Baltej Singh, resident of village Taruwana, Tehsil and District Sirsa, working as a Constable in Haryana Police Posted at City Police Station Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                         ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Goyal Cement Store, Old Thana Road, Kalanwali, District Sirsa, through its partner/ proprietor.

2. M.D. Shree Cement Limited, 122-123, Hans Bhawan No.1, Bahadur Shah Jaffer Marg, New Delhi.

3. Bhola Singh son of Shri Bishamber Singh, resident of village Rori, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                         ...…Opposite parties.

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

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

                   SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.        

Present:       Sh.H.S.Raghav,  Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite party no.1 exparte.

Sh.A.K.Monga, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

Sh. Kapil Bamnia, Advocate for opposite party No.3.

                   ORDER

                    Case of complainant in brief, is that complainant purchased 15 bags of Shree Ultra Cement at the rate of Rs.270/- per bag from op no.1 on 30.10.2011. The complainant used the cement for construction of roof (DOT) of his house with the size 14  x 16 feet at the height of 11 feet from the plinth. Two beams of saria cement were also prepared for constructing the roof. The Mason constructed the roof as per prescribed mixer of cement, crasher, sand and bricks etc. The roof was to be opened after 15 days and when Mason removed the temporary link of roof, the entire room came down on the Mason as well as labourers and they sustained injuries. The complainant had spent huge amount of Rs.20,000/- but said amount has gone in waste as the ops have sold inferior quality of cement to the complainant. It is further averred that father of complainant lodged a DDR No.24 dated 30.10.2011 in Police Station Kalanwali in this regard. The repeated requests of the complainant to the opposite parties to compensate him went in vain and he has suffered financial loss and mental tension. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint  for a direction to Ops for payment of above said amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith compensation for harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, initially op no.1 appeared through counsel and sought various opportunities for filing reply but did not file the same and ultimately opted to be proceeded exparte.

3.                Opposite party no.2 contested the case by pleading that complainant has not produced any receipt regarding alleged purchase of cement of the brand of op no.2. Moreover, there is no proof or evidence that the cement was taken to village Taruwana and has been used in the construction of roof as alleged. Besides this, the roof can be fallen due to not proper mixture of sand, crasher, bajri, bricks with the cement. Besides this, if the dot/roof has not been properly watered and if the spot given to the dot is removed earlier and the iron rods/saria and guarders are not properly laid and are of poor quality, the roof can fall. The cement of answering op is of good quality and ISI standard which has been passed by the authorities after taking all kinds of samples/ tests etc. There is no defect in the cement of answering op. The reason for falling of the roof may be that the bricks used in the DOT may be of shallow quality and the iron rods, guarders may be of lower quality or may not be properly laid. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied.

4.                Opposite party no.3 who alleged himself as a Mason has filed written statement submitting therein that when the complainant took the delivery of cement bags at his premises, the answering op was present there and he checked the quality of cement and noticed that the cement is of lower quality. He disclosed the said fact to land owner Jasbir Singh upon which Jasbir Singh and he himself approached to op no.1 but op no.1 by using buttering language assured the complainant that cement is of good quality and assured him about his responsibility for any kind of loss. The answering op used the proper quantity of cement and other material and there was no deficiency of service on his part during the construction work. The entire roof came down only due to the fact that cement supplied by op no.1 was of very poor quality and same was having no strength power as is ordinary available in the cement of other companies.  

5.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt and speed post receipt as Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, acknowledgments Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. OP no.3 has placed on file his affidavit as Ex.R1. OP no.2 has placed on record affidavit Ex.R2 and attested copy of certificate as Ex.R3. 

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

7.                The purchase of 15 bags of cement at the rate of Rs.270/- per bag from opposite party no.1 is proved from bill dated 30.10.2011 placed on file (though not exhibited or marked). The said purchase by complainant is not negated by opposite party no.1 who initially appeared but did not file any reply and ultimately proceeded to be exparte. The complainant has alleged that roof of his house had fallen due to inferior quality of cement supplied by opposite party no.1. Although, opposite party no.2 i.e. Manufacturer of cement in question is claiming that their cement is of good quality but it cannot be ignored that some batch/lot can be of inferior quality and the opposite party no.1 was the best person to disclose the batch number of the cement but op no.1 has failed to disclose this fact and has opted to be proceeded exparte. There may be some other reason for falling of roof as disclosed by op no.2 but the cement is the main ingredient for the construction of building/house and there is every possibility that cement supplied by op no.1 to the complainant was not having strength power.

8.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that end of justice would be met if the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant. Hence, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant as compensation. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the ops No.1 & 2. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated: 2.9.2016.                              Member.       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Sirsa.