District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.347/2020.
Date of Institution:06.10.2020.
Date of Order: 29.3.2024.
Mrs. Bimla, wife of Sh. Basant Kumar, resident of plot No.1, Near Bohra Public School, Bharat Singh colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Aadhar card No. 4808 0558 4762, mobile No. 8826448009.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Mohan Brothers, D-968, 100 feet road, Chawla Colony , Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, through its proprietor Kanhiya Lal Goyal.
2. M/s. Ultratech Limited, Khasra No. 145/146/1, Ignou Road, Neb Sarai, Shoukeen Market, New delhi – 110 068 through its Directors/principal Officers.
2nd address:-
M/s. Ultratech Limited, Head Office: B-Wing, 2nd floor, Ahura Cnte, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Anil Kumar , counsel for the complainant.
(counsel for the complainant not appearing since 08.05.2023)
Ms. Neena Sharma , counsel for opposite party No.1.
Ms. Kalpana Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was absolute owner and in possession of residential plot No.1, Bhagat Singh Colony, Ballabgarh, having an area of 180 sq. yards, The complainant was to construct residential house over the said plot, for which the complainant was to purchase building materials including cement etc. On 17.07.2020 the complainant visited the opposite party No.1, and after long discussion, the complainant became ready to purchase Ultratech cement @ Rs.368.00 per bag (which includes CGST and SGST) and the complainant purchased 125 bags of cement of Ultratech for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,000/- and for which the opposite party No.1 issued tax invoice NO. 0245 dated 19.07.2020 to the name of the complainant. On the same day i.e. on 19.07.2020, the lanter of the roofs of the property of the complainant was to complete, hence immediately, after purchasing the cement, the complainant used the same in marketing the lanter of roof of house of the complainant. At the time of selling the above said cement, the opposite party No.1 gave guarantee by saying that the cement was of good quality. But after using the said cement, the lanter of roof of the house of the complainant became very weak as the other material lying in the lantel was not gripping the said cement and when the complainant checked the empty bags of cement duly supplied by the opposite party No.1, then he found that the manufacturing date of cement had been printed of different months of the year 2018 on 6 bags, whereas there were 20 bags, which were not having any manufacturing date nor were having any mark thereon. Further there were 17 bags of cement, bearing the manufacturing date of different months of the year 2019 and 62 bags of cement were bearing the manufacture date of before the month of March 2020. As per the instructions printed on the cement bags, it had been clearly mentioned that the cement lying in the said bags should be used before three months from the date of its manufacture. This fact was very much within the knowledge of the opposite parties, but despite of which, the opposite party No1 in collusion with opposite party No.2, intentionally and deliberately had sold out the said cement bags of expiry date to the complainant and had played a fraud with the complainant, resultantly the lanter of roofs of the house of the complainant became cracked. In this way, the complainant had suffered a huge loss of Rs.13,50,000/- duly spent by the complainant on account of purchasing of cement bags, labour expenses as well as other building material, for which both the opposite parties were solely responsible in all respects. Even the complainant had sent the cement out of bags duly supplied by the opposite party No.1, to the lab for the purpose of its test, the test report of the said cement was still awaiting. The complainant also made complaint on toll free No. 18002103311 of M/s. Ultratech Cement, on 6.8.2020 at about 4:30p.m. vide complaint No. 44199, but the complainant did not receive any response till now.The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.08.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- being duly spent by the complainant on account of purchasing of cement bags, building material as well as labour charges etc. for putting the lanter over the roof of the house of the complainant as well as on account of re-construction to be made by the complainant, after demolishing the previous construction, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till realization of whole amount; immediately.
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as a matter of fact the complainant herself used the inferior and poor quality Iron Net/Jal for the lanter due to which there might have not been gripping in the lanter. The complainant had not impleaded the owner/proprietor of the shop from which the complainant had purchased the iron materials. The complainant had not obtained the report from the Government approved Building
Engineer regarding any defect in the cement bags. It clearly shows that the complainant herself procured the outdated cement bags from any other supplier and on the basis of false and frivolous story had filed the present false complaint against the opposite party No.1 just to harass him and to extort money illegally and unlawfully from the answering opposite party. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No. 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had purchased 125 bags of Portland Pozzolana Cement (Cement Bags) on 19.07.2020 from the opposite party No.1 who was the dealer of the answering opposite party who purchased 250 bags from the godown of the answering opposite party situated at Faridabad on 14.07.2020 and the said cement was from the batch (D-09/W-28/M-07/Y-20). The said product was manufacture and packed by the Ultratech Jhajjar Cement Works complying with all the industrial standards and the cement supplied to the complainant was out of the said batch as and the said cement was of the best quality and within the validity period. The answering opposite party or the opposite party No.1 had not received any complaint from the complainant prior to receiving the notice sent by the counsel for the complainant and on receiving the notice the technical officers of the answering opposite party visited the site of the complainant on 5.09.2020 and observed there was no such problem as alleged by the complainant and as per as concerned to the quality of the cement and its strength as per the finding of technical experts the cement sold by the opposite party to the complainant was of the best quality and fulfilled all the BIS norms and also the norms of the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the cement bags sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant were fresh and withing the validly period and these bags were not of expiry date and were of the standard quality but after using the cement in question and by constructing her house in good condition the complainant was leveling false allegation against the opposite party No.1 and answering opposite party with intent to extort some money from the opposite party as such it was crystal clear that the opposite party had not committed any violation. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Mohan Brothers with the prayer to: a) compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- being duly spent by the complainant on account of purchasing of cement bags, building material as well as labour charges etc. for putting the lanter over the roof of the house of the complainant as well as on account of re-construction to be made by the complainant, after demolishing the previous construction, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till realization of whole amount; immediately. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Bimla,, Ex.C-1 & 2 – Tax invoices, Ex.C-3 – receipt,, Ex.C-4 – estimate/quotation, Ex.C-5 – bill, Ex.C-6 -= estimate dated 19.07.2020, Ex.C-7 – details of expire cement, Ex.C-8 – legal notice, Ex.C-9 to 11 – postal receipts, Ex.C-12 to C-33 – photographs.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Kanhiya Lal Goyal Proprietor of M/s. Mohan Brothers, D-968, 100 ft. road, Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
As per evidence of opposite party No. Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Tikmani, Aged 44, Yrs, Authorized representative of M/s. ultratech cement Limited, 3rd floor, SCO-4, Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana
7. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- being duly spent by the complainant on account of purchasing of cement bags, building material as well as labour charges etc. for putting the lanter over the roof of the house of the complainant as well as on account of re-construction to be made by the complainant, after demolishing the previous construction, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till realization of whole amount; immediately.
8. As per the affidavit filed by opposite party No.1 that the complainant herself used the inferior and poor quality Iron Net/Jal for the lanter due to which there might have been gripping in the lantern. The complainant has not impleaded the owner/proprietor of the shop from whom the complainant had purchased the iron materials. The complainant has not obtained the report from the Government approved building engineer regarding any defect in the cement bags.
6. Counsel for opposite parties strongly opposed that there is no expert report of the board or any other competent authority has been filed by the complainant . In the absence of expert opinion and any cogent evidence merely on the basis of presumption it can not be deemed that there was any negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 while purchasing the cement from opposite party No.1. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed . Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 29.03.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
