Punjab

StateCommission

A/1663/2014

Airolam Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jiwan Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Harshit Jain

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  PUNJAB   SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                                     

                                      First Appeal No.1663 of 2014.

 

                                                          Date of Institution:    24.12.2014.

                                                          Date of Decision:               14.01.2015.

 

Airolam Limited, Dalpur Village Nanakpur Approach Road, Tehsil Prantij, District S.K. (Gujarat) 383120, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.

 

                                                          …..Appellant/OP-1.

         

                                      Versus

 

1.      Jiwan Kumar, aged 43 years, S/o Sh. Jai Gopal Bansal, R/o   Street No.5, Sant Attar Singh Nagar, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam,     District Sangrur.

 

                                                          ….Respondent/Complainant.

 

2.      Vicky Glass House, Mata Modi Road, Sunam, District Sangrur,        through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

3.      Jindal Mica House, near Namdev Marg, Bhatti Road, Bathinda,        through its Proprietor.

 

                                                          ….Respondents/OP-2 & 3.

                                                         

         

First Appeal against order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

 

                    Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.

                    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.     

Present:-

 

          For the appellant         :         Sh. Harshit Jain, Advocate.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER:-

                                     

                   This appeal has been filed by appellant/OP-1 against the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, “the District Forum”), Sangrur, vide which the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant against appellant and OPs No.2 & 3, was allowed and they were directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.07.2011 till realization. They were further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

2.                The appellant is OP-1 before the District Forum, who is the manufacturer of the sunmica sheets, purchased by the complainant, through OP-2. The complainant alleged in his complaint that when the sunmica sheets, so purchased by him, were affixed in his house, it developed cracks after sometime. It was pleaded that the complainant spent Rs.2,56,227/- on purchase of the material. Rs.1350/- per sheet were charged by the company for fixing the same. In this way, he incurred a total expenditure of Rs.4 lacs.

3.           In order to support his allegations, the complainant proved on record the report of expert Er. Arun Goyal, Civil Engineer, which is annexed by the appellant with the grounds of appeal, the contents of which are reproduced as under:-

 

“That I inspected one piece of MICA Sheet 1mm of Airolam Limited. The Mica sheet made up of layers of fibrous sheet material impregnated with thermosetting resins and bonded together by means of heat and a pressure of not less than 7 Mpa. The outer layer or layers on one or both sides have decorative colours or designs. With nominal thickness varies from 0.5mm to bear high resistance to surface wear, impact scratching for type S,F,P but in case of Mr. Jiwan Kumar when the mica sheet was checked for impact, temperature change by adopting the procedure in given Code IS-2046:1995 they got cracked at 10N load. Also they were not able to bear temperature of 17°C, which is non-desirable as per specification.

So, I am of the considered opinion that the said mica sheets of 1mm cracked due to manufacturing fault or by the use of poor quality material.”

 

                   Perusal of this report shows that the Technical Expert Er. Arun Goyal is a qualified Civil Engineer, having a decree of B.Tech. He had checked the material as per the procedure given in Code IS-2046:1995 and the material was not found able to bear temperature of 17°C, which is non-desirable as per the specifications. It was, accordingly, concluded by the said expert that the sunmica sheets of 1mm cracked due to manufacturing fault or by the use of poor quality material. This report of the expert is very specific and clearly establishes that the material supplied by the appellant was having manufacturing defect. The appellant could not place on record any material or referred to any literature to contradict the findings of the expert. It has only contended that the learned District Forum had not allowed the appellant to file its reply and evidence, despite the fact that the appellant filed revision petition before this Commission and thereafter, the case was remanded back to the District Forum, for deciding the complaint on merits.

4.                Admittedly, the appellant was proceeded against exparte and initially, the complaint was dismissed on technical grounds and when the appellant filed the revision petition before this Commission, directions were issued to the District Forum to decide the same on merit, instead of dismissing the same on technical grounds. Since the appellant did not challenge the exparte proceedings before this Commission, therefore, the District Forum had rightly not allowed it to lead its evidence.

5.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no ground to admit the appeal and to issue notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
6.           The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.

 

                                                               (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                       

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

January 14, 2015.                                                               

(Gurmeet S)