Haryana

Karnal

CC/202/2017

Amrit Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kaushal Brothers C&F Shree Cement Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kumar

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 202 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt. 15.06.2017

                                                          Date of Decision 30.01.2019

 

Amrit Pal son of Shri Roshan Lal, resident of village Matak Majri, Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

                                                                      …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Kaushal Brothers (Regd.) C & F Shree Cement Ltd. Novelty Road, Karnal through its proprietor/partner.

2. Shree Cement Ltd. RAS, Taluka Jaitran, Bangur City, Rajasthan through its Authorized Person/MD.

                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Pardeep Kamboj Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Virender Sachdeva Advocate for OPs.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased 200 bags of Shree Cement of OP company for the sum of Rs.60,000/-, vide bill no.1089 dated 28.11.2016. After purchased of said cement, the complainant used the said cements for the construction of 1^st floor of his house from an expert and experience Mason/Chani Mistri who used to do the construction work since last more than 20 years and the complainant used the said cement for construction of Lanter 22’X25’ of three rooms and 22’x25 out side the room at first floor. Complainant has spent Rs.5 lacs on Saria, Sand, Bazri Cement, Labour etc. for the construction. During the said construction fulfilled all the formalities and proper care like proper watering etc. Just after passing about 3 months from the said construction, the sand and the cement started falling down from the lanter. Similarly sand and cement started coming out from the said constructed floor and in this way the said construction has ruined. The complainant approached the said Mason and other experts and the complainant was surprised to know that  the cement provided by the OPs was of inferior quality. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.1 and asked for the same but instead of hearing anything the OP no.1 threatened the complainant not to come back again in this regard otherwise the same will not good for the health of the complainant and misbehaved with him. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.05.2017 to the OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.2 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the cement supplied to other parties/consumers during the month of November, 2016 and no complaint in the same lot of manufacturing about the quality of cement was ever received. It has not been established by way of concrete evidence, that cement supplied was defective or sub-standard in any way nor the complainant tried to take any help from any independent laboratory/Expert regarding the quality of cement nor the affidavit of Mason has been placed on file. It is further stated that the strength of cement has reduced with the passage of time and especially in circumstances when it was not properly stored. It is further stated that complainant does not comply with the mandatory procedure of law contained in Section 13 of the C.P. Act.  It is further stated that the complainant has not tested the cement independently or in the presence of the company representative. The complainant has not deposited the same to the Forum in packed condition to meet the condition of the provision and stipulation. Cement is the only product, which is manufactured as per BIS specifications. The other material such as sand/Ballast etc. may have certain deficiencies may affect adversely the construction as a whole. It is further stated that it is not clear that whether the mixing of all components like cement, sand, bazri etc. was in right proportion as per the civil norms and not properly used by the mason before applying cement for flooring. It is also not clear from the complaint that whether the proper curing has been done which is an essential ingredient in civil construction. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.1 vide his statement dated 9.2.2018 stated that written statement filed by OP no.2 be read as written statement of OP no.1.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 14.06.2018.

5.             On the other hand OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Kumar Talwar Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 6.12.2018.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased 200 bags of  Shree Cement of OP company for construction of the first floor of his house. Complainant used the said cement for construction of lanter and floor of the rooms. After passing of three months of construction, the sand and cement started falling down from the lanter and sand and cement started coming out from the floor. Complainant approached the mason and other experts and asked the reason for the said defect, they told that the cement provided by the OP was of inferior quality so that the said defect came out. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and complained in this regard but OPs instead of hearing the complainant they misbehaved with the complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant suffered huge loss and prayed for allow the complaint.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that the company is having very strict monitoring system and independent laboratories where the products of the company are checked at various intervals, based on the parameters specified as per BIS specifications. The company is having indigenous laboratories where each and every lot of manufactured cement is duly checked in terms of quality before releasing the same to the market for sale. Further,  the complainant has not complied with the mandatory provision of Section 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and no expert report produced by the complainant to prove that the cement supplied by the OPs is an inferior quality and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant purchased the cement of the OPs company. As perusal of the records, it is clear that the cement supplied by the OPs was not an inferior quality cement. To prove his version complainant has not produced any cogent evidence/document to prove that the cement supplied by the OP was substandard. The complainant has not complied with the mandatory provision of section 13 (1)© of the Consumer Protection Act. Without proper analysis or tests of the goods from the laboratory, it cannot be ascertained that the product supplied by the OPs was of inferior quality. Further, to prove his version the complainant has not produced on file any expert report or his affidavit. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 30.01.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member