Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/13/79

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maha-Sagar Cement Co.(p) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Satnam singh

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2013

                                                            Date of institution:  09.04.2013                                                                             Date of decision  :   10.06.2016

Jasvir Singh son of Sh. Santokh Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of village Balsuan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Maha Sagar Cement Co(P) Ltd. Village Mehmuana, District Faridkot Punjab.

2.     Balwinder Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh, House No.577, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Faridkot.

3.     Harpreet Singh son of Sh. Jasmail Singh, resident of Brahmain Majra, Fatehgarh Sahib.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member  

                                               

Present :           Sh. Sanjeev Abrol, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                             Sh. G.S.Sandhu, Adv. Cl. for OPs No.1 & 2.

                      OP No.3 exparte.

 

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant Jasvir Singh son of Sh. Santokh Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of village Balsuan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                    The complainant wanted to construct a Show Room at Sirhind Road, Fatehgarh Sahib and for this purpose he wanted to use ACC cement for which OP No.3 contacted him and the rate of cement was settled as Rs.275/- per bag. The complainant started purchasing the said cement from OP No.3, who further supplied the same after taking it from OP No.2. The OPs supplied about 1000 bags of cement to the complainant till February 12 at the rate of Rs.275/- per bag.  The construction work was started in January 2012 and pillars, walls and cemented roof of ground floor were constructed in March 2012. On 02.03.2012, when Santokh Singh, father of complainant, contractor and mason got lifted the support of cemented roof of ground floor, then they found that there were cracks in the cemented roof and also found that there is something wrong with the cement.  The complainant had also started the construction of Shed at his village Balsuan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala and for that purpose he directed OP No.3 to supply 300 bags of ACC cement. On 03.04.2012 OP No.3 sent one Truck No. RJ 13-G 4319 to the village of the complainant loaded with 300 bags of ACC cement prepared in the factory i.e. OP No.1.  At the time of unloading the cement from the said truck, the complainant found that there is something wrong in ACC cement and he immediately informed OP No.3 about that. Then OP No.3 requested the complainant that he is calling Balwinder Singh, OP No.2, for settlement. OP No.2 and 3 arrived at the spot and wanted to settle the matter and were ready to pay Rs.10 lacs for losses and damages, however, complainant demanded Rs.15 lacs for the said loss from them but they refused to pay the said amount as demanded by the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to P.S.Basantpura Police Chownki under P.S. Sadar Rajpura and after investigation an FIR No.24 dated 03.04.2012 under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC read with Section 63, 65, 68 of Copy Right Act was lodged against OP No.2 and 3 along with driver and cleaner of the said truck.  Both OPs No.2 and 3 are on bail and complainant many times requested them to pay the   compensation on account of loss and damages but they refused to pay the compensation. The complainant also served a legal notice upon them but in vain. Hence, this complaint for directing the OPs to pay Rs.15 lacs as compensation for damages and loss.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   OPs No. 1 and 2 appeared before this Forum to contest this complaint but they failed to file written version despite several opportunities.

5.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C1/A, photographs Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-12, FIR Ex. C-13, true copy of bill Ex. C-14, report Ex. C-15, legal notice and postal receipts Ex.     C-16 to Ex. C-19 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex. OP2/1, true copies of registered trade mark Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is that OP No.2 was manufacturing duplicate ACC cement and supplying the same to the consumer through OP No.3. He stated that the complaintant used the said cement for construction of the shed and after the work was completed, the complainant noticed cracks in the roofs. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant contacted OP No.3 with the complaint regarding the quality of the said cement and OP No.2 was ready to settle the matter but due to certain unavoidable reasons, no settlement was made between the parties. He also pleaded that the complainant even got an FIR No.24 dated 3.04.2012 registered against the OPs. The ld. counsel also pleaded that it is evident from the photographs i.e Ex.C-1 to C-12 that the said cement supplied by OP No.2 was a duplicate and due to the same, the complainant had to bear financial loss as well as mental agony.

7.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 2 has stated that the OPs had not supplied any cement bags to the complainant. He submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence with regard to construction of the shed. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant has failed to produce any analyst report in order to establish that the said cement was duplicate. He also pleaded that the Bill i.e Ex.C4 was issued in the name of JP,CIS,Jalandhar (PB) and number of bags supplied are mentioned as 180 and whereas the complainant has alleged that he was constructing Shed at Village Balsuan, District Patiala. He further pleaded that it has been pleaded by the complainant that 300 bags were supplied but the complainant has failed to place on record any such bills. The ld. counsel argued that the present complainant had been filed against the OPs only to extract money and the same deserves to be dismissed. The ld. counsel placed reliance on the case law titled as Mohan Babu Agarwal Vs. Chairman, Burroughs Welcome(India) Limited & Anr., 2011(1) C.P.J. 235, wherein it has been held “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) and 15 Contaminated bottle of Medicine- Compensation- Complaint- Dismissed- Hence appeal- Contention raised that complainant had purchased medicine from a retailer and both wholesale and retailer were owned by same family, they were liable to pay compensation- Contention repelled- Complainant had not been able to produce on record either any receipt or any other proof of payment- Absence of receipt bill of payment, complainant could not be believed to have purchased contaminated bottle of medicine from either of two medical centres- Oral statement would not meet requirement of positive proof- No merit in appeal- Dismissed".

8.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 2. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to prove that the said duplicate cement was manufactured and supplied by OP No.1 & 2.The complainant has failed to place on record report of analysts, Bills of 1000 cement bags issued in the name of complainant. The complainant has also failed to prove whether OP No.3 was authorized dealer/supplier of OP No.1 & 2. Moreover the bill of 180 cement bags was issued in the name of  JP,CIS, Jalandhar (PB), whereas the complainant was constructing his Shed at Village Balsuan,District Patiala.

9.                   Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law cited by the ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 2, we find that the complainant has failed to provide any cogent evidence in order to prove his case. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merits. No order as to cost.                

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 06.06.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.    

Pronounced                                                                                             Dated: 10.06.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)               President

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)                                                                                            Member