Haryana

StateCommission

A/955/2015

JAI PARKSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ SHEORAN

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.955 of 2015

Date of the Institution:29.10.2015

Date of Decision:15.02.2017

 

Jai Parkash son of Ram Partap, resident of village Rupana, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      Mahender Singh, Prop. Mange Lal Hardware Store, Main Road, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani.

 2.     The Manager, Vardhman Trading Company, Bishansarup Colony, in front of Main Bus Stand, Panipat (Haryana).

3.      The Director, Ramki Industries, R.S. Corporate Centre, 6^th Floor, 98A, Dr. Radha Krishan Road, Mahilpur, Post Box No.2949, Chennai-60004.

4.      Ved Parkash son of Sh. Mange Lal, Prop. Mange Lal Ved Parkash Hardware Store, Main Road, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani.

                                                                                                .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Neeraj Sheoran, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Vaibhav jain, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 4.

Mr. Pardeep Kumar, representative of respondent No.3.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Jai Parkash, complainant is in appeal against the Order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Bhiwani for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.9,69,00/-, awarded against Mahender Singh, Prop. Mange Lal Hardware Store and Ors. 

2.      Briefly stated, on 18.08.2009, the complainant purchased 100+110 cement sheets from OP No.1 and paid Rs.43800/- and Rs.48180/- respectively, in his name as well as in the name of his father (Ram Partap). In the month of October, 2009, he got prepared a shed for the chicken and got fitted 185 cement sheets in the roof. But, the cement sheets supplied by OP No.1 were of inferior quality and there was leakage of water in the rains. The complainant alleged that due to rain water, falling in the feed, number of chicks fell ill and died. Due to this, he suffered a total loss of Rs.9,69,000/-. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for claiming the requisite amount.

3.      According to OPs 1 & 4, the bills of the said sheets were issued in the name of Ram Partap as such, the complainant was not a Consumer.

4.      According to OP No.3, there was no complaint of seepage in the sheets in question in the first year, but it was in the second year. The OP deputed one Sh. Sunay Shirod for spot inspection and as per his report there was no quality problem or seepage etc. in the cement sheets supplied by them.  The complainant had changed the “J” hook in the second year, so rainy water came in through the “J” hook. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint by awarding Rs.30,000/- as compensation besides other expenses. Considering this amount as inadequate, the complainant has come in Appeal before us for the enhancement of this amount.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is evident that the complainant had purchased the cement sheets in question, but he has not produced any expert evidence to substantiate his allegation that the quality of cement was sub standard or inferior one due to which the seepage took place. Moreover, the categoric stand taken by the OP that the appellant had not installed the cement sheets in a prescribed proper manner, especially changing the “J” hook etc., has not been refuted by the complainant. Therefore, the OPs firms stand that the chicken had died not due to leakage water can not be brushed aside. In these circumstances, the learned District Forum instead of dismissing the complaint has partly allowed it. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and uphold the well reasons and detailed order passed by the learned District Forum.

 

February 15th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.