SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

                Complainant has filed this complaint for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,83,000/- to the complainant with cost.

            Complainant’s case is that the complainant No.1 is the son of complainant No.2. The complainant No.1 is employed abroad and is not always available in home country.  The complainant No.1 is owner of shop building in Mattool Panchayth situated near Juma Masjid, Mattool, having three rooms in ground floor.  The complainant No.2, father is managing the affairs of said shop building in the absence of complainant No.1.  For repairing the roof of existing shop room with RCC, the complainant No.1 approached 2^nd OP who is dealer of building materials.  The 2^nd OP solicited and encourage the 2^nd complainant to buy a cement stocked in the business premise bearing a name “Hinton”.  The 2^nd complainant, accordingly was made to buy 100 gunny bags of cement manufactured by 1^st OP on 20/02/2023 for a total value of Rs.33,000/- paid in cash to 2^nd OP.  On 22/02/2023, the concrete work was completed by skilled workers and proper water curing was done for about two weeks.    However, even after completing the RCC works, till this date the concrete remains not set in concrete manner.  The 2^nd complainant repeatedly contacted 2^nd OP.  But 2^nd OP was go on saying that technical persons from 1^st OP will visit the shop of 1^st complainant and till redress and remedy the grievance of complainant.  But, till date they are not prepared to visit of verify the problem.  Now there are 10 gunny bags remaining as balance out of used quantity.  The complainant suffered great financial loss, mental agony loss of time and physical effort and deserves for entitling the grievances of paying back the invoice value of goods, and reconstruction of RCC concrete denova, compensation etc.  The OPs 3 and 4^th have falsely represented about the quality and strength of cement product by wide publicity including the advertisement.  The act on the part of the OP No.3 and 4 are deceitful, unfair trade practice and amount to defraud the customers.  Hence all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for compensative the complainant.

            Along with the complaint, complainant filed an expert application to inspect the premises of complainant and to file report.  As per the application, An A-Grade Engineer,    Mr. AT Abdu Rahiman was appointed as expert and after inspection he has filed the report.

            After receiving notice, OPs 3 and 4 filed version denying the allegation of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainants have to prove that they carried out the concrete work by skilled workers and proper watering was done for reasonable period. Moreover it is incumbent upon the complainants to prove that they made a payment of Rs.33,000/- to the 2^nd OP.  Further submitted as everybody knows even within a short period of seven days of purchase, if the cement bags are not used, the cement will be hardened and solidified and will render useless for the intended purpose and its cementing quality will be lost.  At no point of time the complainants had approached or contacted      OP No.3 and 4 for purchasing cement bags as averred in the complaint and no         amount has been paid to these OP No.3 and 4 by the complainants.  The contention in the complaint that OP No.3 and 4 falsely represented about the quality and strength of cement product by advertisement in social media is false and baseless.  They never made any untrue or deceitful advertisement and no connection or relation in terms of any sale or purchase.  The complainant have to prove properly conducted the concrete work, they properly mixed the concrete in correction proportion of metal and sand, watered it after finishing the concrete work for adequate period, the complainant’s employed skilled labourers for the same etc.  It is submitted that OPs 3 and 4 are unnecessary parties and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

            At the evidence time complainant has filed chief affidavit and document.  Examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 Tax invoice.  The expert commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1.  One bag of cement submitted.  Marked as Ext.MO1.

            During pre-trial steps, complainant has taken steps to send the sample of cement for lab test to prove the manufacturing defect as recommended by the expert engineer.  But due to elapse of time, ie period of one month after the manufacturing of the cement was over, the lab informed the complainant about the inability to do the test, the complainant has withdrawn the application.

            Complainant has not been cross-examined by any of the OPs.  On the side of OPs none of the OPs adduced oral or documentary evidence. 

            The authentic documentary evidence available before us is Ext.C1, expert report, prepared by the Engineer – A Grade Mr. Abdu Rahiman AT.  He was also examined as Pw2.  He deposed that he has qualified BSc Civil Engineering and is having experience in the relevant filed for 30 years.  He has deposed that the manufacturing date and expiry date are not mentioned over the packet of cement.  On analysis of Ext.C1 report, it is seen that the expert observed the columns/plinth beams etc. are casted before  (before 20/02/2023) using other than “Hinton Cement”.  Appears to have no damages during the inspection and also it was in perfect condition. The roof slab/roof beams and back side stair case were said to have been casted on 22/02/2023 using Hinton Cement.  During inspection the expert found such construction are in poor conditions and several damages in certain parts of roof and one portion  is seen detached from slab.  Further, reported that as far as information received the above cement was very poor in quality and in substandard cement.  His recommendation includes that the complainant shall be compensated for their loss due to the poor quality of cement.  The work includes the demolition of roof slab/roof beams/stair case etc. casted on 22/02/2023 without damaging the existing columns laterite walls which were casted before 22/02/2023

            Pw2 also was not subjected to cross-examination by any of the OPs.  So the observation of the expert commissioner was not challenged.  Since he is a qualified experienced person, Ext.C1 report can be taken into account to find out the quality and standard of the cement supplied by OPs.  It is reported that the Hinton cement used for the construction of roof slab and backside stairs case of the shop connected in this case are in poor conditions and several damages in certain parts of roof and one portion is seen detached from slab.  It is also reported that the columns/plinth beams etc. are casted before (before 20/02/2023) using other than “Hinton Cement” appears to have no damages during inspection and also it was in perfect condition.

             If the workmen ship of the complainant is not correct, the beam constructed by using cement other than Hinton cement was also became damaged.   So the contention of OPs 3 and 4 about such allegation cannot be accepted.

            Here since OPs have not adduced any evidence, we are constrained to believe the pleadings and evidence of the complainant.  Through Ext.A1 complainant proved the purchase of cement from OP No.2.  Through Ext.C1 report proved the poor quality, substance of the cement and also damage happened to the construction work done by using the Hinton cement manufactured OP No.1 supplied by OP No.2.  OPs 3 and 4 are the partners of OP No.1 Manufactuing Company in Kerala.  So they are also liable to compensate the complainant.  As per Ext.A1, the grand total amount of cement purchased by complainant from OP No.2 is Rs.33,000/-.  The expert recommended that for rectification work included the demolition of roof slab beams/stair case.  The expense for the work is not assessed by the expert.  Complainant also failed to establish the expense for the work to be done.

So we are inclined to allow Rs.1,50,000/- for repairing work.  OPs are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings of this case.  OPs 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.

             In the result compliant is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.33,000+Rs.1,50,000+Rs.25,000 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which Rs.33,000+Rs.1,50,000 will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to comply the order.  Complainant can execute the order as per provisions in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1- Tax invoice

C1- Expert Commissioner’s report

MO1- one bag of cement

Pw1- Complainant

     Sd/                                                                                 Sd/                                                          Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                              MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

                                               /Forwarded by order/

                                              Assistant Registrar