Haryana

Sonipat

4/2014

RAJASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GULIA TRADERS GOHANA - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.04 of 2014

                             Instituted on:02.01.2014

                             Date of order:27.01.2015

 

Rajesh alias Raju Kaushik son of Dev Dutt Shastri, resident of village Nakloi, tehsil Kharkhoda, district Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.Gulia Traders , Gohana road, near Shiv Mandir Shambhu Dayal School, Sonepat through its Prop. Mahender Singh Gulia.

2.M/s Binani Cement Ltd. Flat no.1109, 11^th Floor, Surya Kiran Building, 19 KG Marg, New Delhi.

3.Vinod son of Mahabir, resident of Gali no.3, Malviya Nagar, Mehlana road, Sonepat(Contractor).

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Narender Dhonchak, Advocate for Complainant.

           Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for respondent no.1 and 2.

           Sh. Baljit Khatri, Adv. for respondent no.3

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that in July, 2013 he got constructed his house situated in Garhi Ghasita behind Madan School, Kakroi road, Sonepat through respondent no.3 and for the purpose of construction of the house, the complainant has purchased 90 bags of Binani Cement from respondent no.1 at the rate of Rs.250/- and Rs.255/- per bag for Rs.22700/- vide bill no.1223 and 1227 dated 28.8.2013  and 30.8.2013 respectively.  But to the surprise of the complainant, wherever the said cement was used i.e. in lintel, beams, staircase, walls etc. it automatically started coming down like sand and cracks developed in the lintel of the house.  The complainant has already spent Rs.3 lacs on the construction of the house and on coming to know that the cement is sub-standard and of inferior quality, he reported the matter to the respondent no.1 who inspected the site, who further informed the respondent no.2.  Two engineers came at the site. Video recording was done and photographs were taken and they assured the complainant that they would compensate the complainant suitably, but it was totally a false assurance. The complainant got tested the said cement from Micro Engineering and Testing Lab and they submitted their report on 13.9.2013 and reported that the requires strength of the cement should not be less than 85% i.e. 22.5 N/mm2 while the average compressive strength of the concrete core sample was to be only 4.1 N/mm2 only.  From the above report, it was proved that the cement was of inferior quality and the complainant requested the respondents to compensate him to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1,2 and 3 appeared through their respective counsel and has filed their separately written statement.

          The respondent no.1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement submitting therein that the complainant has purchased 90 bags of Binani Cement from respondent no.2, but they have denied the fact that the above said cement was of sub-standard or inferior quality in any manner.  It is submitted that the concrete mix used in the construction was below standard norms.  On receipt of the complaint, the respondent no.2 deputed their Engineers to inspect the site.  But to the surprise of the respondent no.2 so reported by the Engineers, the behavior of the complainant towards them was found very much objectionable and they also reported that the Mason did not do the construction work properly.  No assurance to compensate the complainant was ever given by the Engineers.  The testing of the cement by the lab was not done in the presence of any authorized person of the respondent no.1 and 2.  The testing report does not clarify and disclose the testing of detailed concrete mixture used in the construction. The respondents no.1 and 2 have denied the fact that the cement was of sub standard quality while there has never been any such complaint from any other place.  The lab report is wrong and is not at all admissible in the eyes of law and thus, the same cannot be relied upon.  The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondents no.1 and 2 only to harass, humiliate and to extract the amount of compensation.  The complainant has suffered the loss due to the carelessness and fault of the Mason and not due to the use of cement.    The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in his written statement has submitted that he used the cement so purchased by the complainant in the construction of the house, but the cement automatically started falling down and construction of the house had to be stopped due to the sub standard quality of cement. Two Engineers of respondent no.2 had visited the site on 27.8.2013 who done the videography and have taken the photographs.  It is also submitted that the respondent no.3 used the material as per the construction norms so required to be used and there is no fault on the part of the respondent no.3.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation against the respondent no.3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.3.

3.        We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that due to supply of poor/lower and substandard quality of cement, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs.  It is further submitted while relying on the report of Micro Engineering and Testing Lab that the alleged sample of the cement did not comply with the specification as it should have been.  So, due to the act and conduct of the respondents, the complainant not only suffered a huge financial loss, but has also suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has also argued his case vehemently that the complainant has purchased 90 bags of Binani Cement from respondent no.2, but they have denied the fact that the above said cement was of sub-standard or inferior quality in any manner.  It is submitted that the concrete mix used in the construction was below standard norms.  On receipt of the complaint, the respondent no.2 deputed their Engineers to inspect the site.  But to the surprise of the respondent no.2 so reported by the Engineers, the behavior of the complainant towards them was found very much objectionable and they also reported that the Mason did not do the construction work properly.  No assurance to compensate the complainant was ever given by the Engineers.  The testing of the cement by the lab was not done in the presence of any authorized person of the respondent no.1 and 2.  The testing report does not clarify and disclose the testing of detailed concrete mixture used in the construction. The respondents no.1 and 2 have denied the fact that the cement was of sub standard quality while there has never been any such complaint from any other place.  The lab report is wrong and is not at all admissible in the eyes of law and thus, the same cannot be relied upon.  The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondents no.1 and 2 only to harass, humiliate and to extract the amount of compensation.  The complainant has suffered the loss due to the carelessness and fault of the Mason and not due to the use of cement.    The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has also argued that he used the cement so purchased by the complainant in the construction of the house, but the cement automatically started falling down and construction of the house had to be stopped due to the sub standard quality of cement. Two Engineers of respondent no.2 had visited the site on 27.8.2013 who done the videography and have taken the photographs.  It is also submitted that the respondent no.3 used the material as per the construction norms so required to be used and there is no fault on the part of the respondent no.3.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation against the respondent no.3.

5.        In the present case, the complainant’s stand is that he has suffered a loss of Rs.10 lacs due to supply of poor/lower and substandard quality of cement.  In support of his contention, he has relied upon the test report  (Ex.C11) issued by Micro Engineering and Testing Laboratory.

          In the present case, the complainant has not only produced the report issued by Micro Engineering and Testing Laboratory, but has also led cogent and elaborate evidence by producing the photographs.  The complainant also produced the copy of videography recorded by him at the spot.  Through this videography also, the complainant has proved the presence of two engineers of the respondent no.2.  Two engineers of the respondent no.2 has also taken the sample from the spot on that day.  But the respondent no.2 has not produced any report regarding those samples taken by their two engineers.  The complainant has also produced the bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 regarding purchase of cement bags and other raw material for the construction of his house. From the above evidence led by the complainant and taking into consideration the report of Micro Engineering and Testing Lab, it is proved that due to supply of sub-standard and inferior quality of cement, the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss.  In our view, the respondent no.1 is not at any fault because he has time informed the matter to the respondent no.2. The complainant was constructing the house in the area of 42 Sq. yards and in our view, the compensation claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs.10 lacs is on a very higher side, excessive and exorbitant one.  In our view, Rs.two lacs would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent no.2. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two lacs for supply of substandard and inferior quality of cement, for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1&3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  27.01.2015