Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/832/2019

Dharmander - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.K Laxmi - Opp.Party(s)

B.L Sharma

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 832 of 2019

                  Date of Institution             : 18.11.2019

                                                           Date of Decision               : 22.07.2024

 

Dharmender son of Sh. Manphool R/o village Sanga, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. J.K. Laxmi Cement Ltd., Milap Niketan Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.

 

2. Nand Kumar Cement Store, Village Dhareru, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its authorized signatory.

 

3. Satyawan Cement Store, Village Sanga, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its authorized signatory.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Vinod Kaushik, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Ashwani Kr. Chaudhary, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased and used many bags of cement from OP No.3 at the instance of OP No.2 for construction of his house and used the cement as per their instructions.  On 23.09.2019, complainant purchased 22 bags of cement (J.K. Laxmi Pro Plus) manufactured by OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.8140/- and used them for construction of Room, Varanda, Latrine and bathroom but as per complainant quality of the cement was very poor as all the construction of house break down and complainant suffered huge loss of Rs.7.00 lacs on account of construction material charges & labour charges etc. The matter was brought into notice of the OPs but they put off the mater on one pretext or the other. So, legal notice dated 19.10.2019 was served upon the OPs but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging negligent behavior and deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment.  In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.7.00 lacs on account of  loss suffered to complainant, Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation for harassment and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint and that complaint suffers for want of report under Section 38(2)(c) of the C.P. Act, 2019. On merits, it is submitted that the alleged cement is their manufacturing and is one of the best quality cement in the market.  It is submitted that there is no complaint from any consumer or dealer with respect to the cement in question. It is denied that complainant employed expert mason in the construction work/plastering of walls etc. It is submitted that on receiving of complaint from complainant, OP No.1 deployed one Civil Engineer to visit the site of complainant and to verify the facts. The engineer reported that complainant purchased 22 bags of the alleged cement and total area of the construction at the site was approximately 750 sq. yards and for making the said construction, it required approximately 300 bags of cement. It is pointed out that complainant has also used other brand cement and also complainant had used ‘fine aggregates’ (sand) for plastering work which resulted in a sub-standard mixture and thus peeling off of plaster from the wall, he also suggested some more points for peeling off the plaster viz. mixing of cement and sand was not proper, less curing was done, before application of plaster adequate wetting was not done and poor workmanship. It is stated that demo for plastering was conducted by the engineer at site and complainant signed Customer Satisfaction Performa on 24.09.2019.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and alleged compensation to the complainant, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

3.                 OPs No.2 & 3 filed written statement on the same lines as that of OP No.1 qua quality of the cement and no deficiency in service on their part and alleged compensation to the complainant.  In the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

4.                 Complainant in order to prove the case has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence on 03.03.2023.

5.                 On the other side, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A of  Sh. Pawan Dutt Tepan  alongwith documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-9 and closed the evidence on 29.05.2023.

6.                 OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit his Ex. RW2/A and closed the evidence on 29.08.2023.

7.                 OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit his Ex. RW3/A and closed the evidence on 29.08.2023.

8.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                 From pleadings of the parties to the complaint, it is proved on record that complainant purchased 22 bags of cement from OP No.2 in Rs.8140/-.  The grievance of complainant is that on applying the said cement for plastering of walls, it peeled off  in a short span of time and thus alleged that the cement was of sub-standard quality which occurred him financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment.  On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the cement is of best quality and every care is taken while manufacturing the cement in question.

10.               We have perused the site inspection report (Ex. R-2) wherein mentioned that the plaster was falling due to not proper mixing of sand and plaster, wall was not wet and poor workmanship.

11.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire record, we have observed that a person who got constructs a house irrespective of its area in size, always chooses an expert mason/workmanship and material and takes every care while applying it or about its maintenance. From the report, it is clear that the plaster was falling from the wall, it means that there was some defect in the cement because of which plaster was falling from the wall.  It is worthwhile to mention here that cement is a core material which fixes the sand on the wall but when the cement is of sub-standard quality then definitely plaster will peel off.  In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the OP No.1 manufacturer is directed to refund the purchase cost of the cement as well as of material viz. sand etc. involved in plastering alongwith interest.  Since, the complainant used 20 bags of cement thus taking of sand on proportionate of 1:4 (1 bag cement and 4 bags sand) comes about 80 bags of sand and thereby average sand was used as 200 feet. Further, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment as well litigation expenses. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.8140/- (Rs. Eight thousand one hundred forty) to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.

(ii)      Further to pay Rs.7000/- (Rs. seven thousand) towards cost of sand/material and labour.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) as compensation for harassment as well as cost of litigation.

                    In case of default, the OP No.1 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:22.07.2024