Haryana

StateCommission

A/960/2016

SHRE CEMENT LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

NAVIN CHOWDHRI

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    960 of 2016

Date of Institution:    14.10.2016

Date of Decision :     26.04.2017

 

Shree Cement Limited through its Managing Director, 122-123, Hans Bhawan No.1, Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi through Anil Kumar Talwar alias A.K. Talwar, Assistant Vice-President (Legal), Power of attorney holder.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Jasbir Singh s/o Sh. Baltej Singh, Resident of Village Taruwana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

          2^nd Address:

          Constable in Haryana Police, Posted at City Police Station Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Goyal Cement Store, through its Partner/Proprietor, Old Thana Road, Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

3.      Bhola Singh s/o Sh. Bishamber Singh, Resident of Village Rori, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Navin Chowdhri, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent No.1-Jasbir Singh, in person.

                             None for respondent No.2.

                             Service of respondent No.3 dispensed with.

                               

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

         This appeal has been preferred by Shree Cement Limited-Opposite Party No.2 against the order dated September 02^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2012.

2.                Jasbir Singh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), at the time of construction of his house at Village Taruwana, Tehsil and District Sirsa, purchased 15 bags of Shree Ultra Cement at the rate of Rs.270/- per bag, on 30^th October, 2011 from Goyal Cement Store, Kalanwali-Opposite Party No.1. An amount of Rs.4050/- as price of the cement bags was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 vide receipt No.1107 dated 30^th October, 2011. The cement was manufactured by Shree Cement Limited-Opposite Party No.2. The above mentioned cement bags were used by the complainant at the time of construction of roof of his house and two beams by using iron rods. Bhola Singh-mason constructed the roof and two beams as per the prescribed mixture of sand, bricks etc. After 15 days of installation of the roof, when the mason removed the temporary link of the roof, the entire roof fell down on the mason as well as other labourers working there, who sustained injuries on their bodies. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- for construction of his house but all in vain. As the opposite party No.1 sold cement of interior quality, the matter was reported to the Police and entries were made in Daily Diary of Police Station, Kalanwali, District Sirsa at Serial No.24.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. The complainant has taken plea that the opposite parties be directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- due to monetary losses suffered by the complainant with interest at the rate of 2% per month and an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony as well as an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite party No.1 in the beginning appeared in the proceedings of this complaint but when the case was fixed for filing written version, the opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex parte on 10^th October, 2013 as none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 on that date before the District Forum.

5.                Opposite Party No.2 in its written version has taken plea that the complainant has not produced any receipt regarding purchase of cement of the brand of opposite party No.2. Moreover, there is no evidence on the file to prove that the cement was taken to Village Taruwana and was used at the time of construction of complainant’s house. Moreover, there may be few other causes also regarding collapse of roof, like no proper mixture of sand, crusher, bajri etc. Collapse of the roof may be due to lack of proper watering and removal of temporary link on an early date also. The roof may also fall if the iron rods, girders etc are not properly placed and are of poor quality. The cement of opposite party No.2 is of good quality having ISI standard. In fact, there is no defect in the cement which is being sold by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any amount, as claimed by the complainant.

6.                Opposite Party No.3 – Bhola Singh-Mason, in his written version has taken plea that the cement used for construction of complainant’s house was of poor quality. At the time of delivery of cement bags, the opposite party No.3 had checked the quality of cement and noticed that the cement was of inferior quality. This fact was disclosed to complainant-Jasbir Singh also. However, the opposite party No.1 had assured the complainant that the cement was of good quality and he would be responsible for any kind of loss caused to the complainant. In this way, cement of inferior quality was used at the time of construction of the roof and due to this reason the roof of complainant’s house collapsed.

7.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

8.                After going through the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 2^nd September, 2016 allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum, to the complainant as compensation.   

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1-complainant in person and perused the case file.

10.              The Opposite Party No.2 is the Managing Director of Shree Cement Limited, manufacturer of Shree Cement Brand. The complainant purchased 15 bags of Shree Cement from the opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.4050/-, vide receipt dated 30^th October, 2011, placed on the file. The opposite party No.1 is ex parte and there appears to be no controversy of any type that 15 bags of cement used by the complainant, were purchased from the opposite party No.1. Copy of the legal notice dated 9^th December, 2011 issued by the complainant through his counsel to the opposite parties, is Exhibit C-2. Postal Receipts Exhibits C-3, C-4 and acknowledgements Exhibits C-5 and C-6 have been adduced in evidence to prove service of the legal notice upon the opposite parties.

11.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-manufacturer of Shree Cement, has argued that the cement manufactured in the company is of good quality but this fact also cannot be ignored that some batches/lots can be of inferior quality also. Opposite Party No.1 was the best person to disclose the batch number of the cement. In the receipt dated 30^th October, 2011, regarding purchase of the cement, batch number of the cement is not mentioned. Moreover, in the receipt, it is also not mentioned that the cement purchased was of Shree Cement brand. In this way, on the basis of statement of the complainant in his affidavit (Exhibit C/1), findings cannot be given that the cement purchased by the complainant was of Shree Cement brand, manufactured by the opposite party No.2. No other document is adduced in evidence by the complainant to prove that the brand of the cement purchased was Shree Cement. In this way, on the basis of evidence on the file, findings cannot be given that cement of Shree Cement brand was used at the time of construction of complainant’s house or that the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the same.

12.              Any how, it stands proved that the cement purchased by the complainant was not of Shree Cement brand but there is enough evidence on the file to hold that complainant had purchased 15 bags of cement from the opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.4050/-, vide receipt dated 30^th October, 2011. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant in his complaint supported by affidavit of the complainant Exhibit C-1 and receipt dated 30^th October, 2011 regarding purchase of the cement. In these circumstances, the findings are given that the complainant had purchased 15 bags of cement from the opposite party No.1 – Goyal Cement Store and that cement was used for construction of complainant’s house.

13.              Bhola Singh-mason, in his affidavit Exhibit R-1, also supports this version. In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that collapse of roof of complainant’s house and beams was due to poor quality of cement used. The opposite party No.2 cannot be held liable to pay any amount as awarded by the District Forum. It is held that the opposite party No.2 shall not be liable to pay any amount claimed by the complainant in his complaint and the complaint qua the relief claimed against the opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

14.              Keeping in mind all the circumstances mentioned above, the awarding of an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant by the learned District Forum as  compensation was justified. The findings of the learned District Forum regarding awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum stands affirmed only against the opposite party No1 – Goyal Cement Store. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party No.2 – Shree Cement Limited is allowed, the impugned order passed by the District Forum qua the relief granted against the opposite party No.2 stands set aside. However, the findings of the District
Forum regarding the relief granted against the opposite party No.1 stands affirmed. The opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum stands modified. No order as to costs.

15.              The statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 26.04.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL