Haryana

Ambala

CC/137/2017

Shiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gupta Trading Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Raj

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 137 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 11.05.2017

                                                          Date of decision    : 28.03.2019

 

 

Shiv Kumar aged about 42 years  S/o Sh. Jaipal, R/o H.No. 1005, near Khera Mandir, Rounta Basti Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       M/s Gupta Trading Co. Opp.  PWD Colony, Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

2.       M/s Ultra tech Cement Ltd. Depot-Address:-Ambala Ultra tech Cement Ltd, Sector-7, SCO-111,  Ambala Haryana-134003. 

3.       Sohan S/o Sant Lal, R/o Near Gurudwara, Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.  

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Malik, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sunil Kumar Arya, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. Anand Garg, Advocate alongwith Sh. Vishal Mittal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

OP No.3 proceeded against exparte v.o.d.28.06.2017.

 

 Order:        Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) and prayer has been made for issuance of direction to  the Ops to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, physical harassment caused to him and cost of litigation or any other relief which  this Hon’ble Forum may deem  fit.

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a plot measuring 5 Marla(about 1100Sq.feet) in village Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. In order to raise the construction on the said plot complainant engaged OP No.3 and started raising construction in the month of July/August, 2015. For raising construction, complainant purchased cement, manufactured by OP No.2 from the OP No.1 vide bill no. 376 for Rs. 62,773/-(including taxes). At the time of purchase of cement, OP No.1 assured him that the cement    manufactured by OP No.2 is of very good quality and if he constructs the building with the said cement then there will be no seepage or cracks in the building. On the assurance of OP No.1, complainant purchased the cement, manufactured by OP No.2 from OP No.1. Similarly, complainant had also purchased Saria (Tore) from OP No.1. OP No.3 told him that the Saria purchased by him is of the best quality. Thereafter, complainant started raising construction, which he spent Rs.5,00,000/- and completed the construction in the month of August/September, 2015. After completion of the construction, in the very first rainy season, there was seepage and cracks in the roof and walls of the building. Complainant immediately, contacted the OP No.1 and apprise about the said facts to the OP no.1, who deputed an Engineer for inspection of the building. The said engineer took photographs but till date neither any report nor any reply has been given by the OP No.1. A registered AD legal notice dated 14.3.2017 was served upon the Ops but of no use.  Due to sale of inferior quality of the cement by the Ops, the complainant has suffered huge financial loss and gone through lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.3 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex parte v.o.d. 28.06.2017.

Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no jurisdiction; bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; suppressed true and material facts and no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the cement supplied to the complainant was of good quality but it might not have been used in a proper manner. In Civil Construction, cement is one of the raw material and not the sole material. There could be many reasons, due to which cracks could have developed. It may develop due to poor workmanship, quality of other building material i.e. sand, Bajri, Stone, Shuttering or lack of efficiency of labour. Viberator and concrete mixture are important component for putting lintel. Insufficient reinforcement usage of local fine sand and no quality control coupled with faulty reinforcement might be the reason for cracks. Moreover, OP No.1 manufactures good quality of cements, in contiguous process plant under stringent quality control and is being supplied in the market under ISI Marks, which confirms that all the physical and chemical properties of the cement are as per rule.

Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action; no jurisdiction and suppressed true and material facts. On merits, it is stated that OP No.2 is engaged in business of manufacturing cement of different grades, under a license duly issued  by Bureau of Indian Standard, duly empowered under the Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986(63 of 1986). The company is manufacturing various types of cement and selling the same through its authorised stockiest and retailers only, all over the country.  Each bag of the cement bears relevant IS Mark number and the quality of each bag of cement confirms to ISI Specification. The quality of each bag is ensured by carrying out physical and chemical tests on day to day basis. No testing of cement, allegedly purchased by the complainant, has been got done by the complainant.  It is pertinent to mention here that ISI Mark is issued only if the product confirms to the specification provided by the Bureau of Indian Standard. Since the product manufactured by the company is produced under physical chemical test, therefore, the quality of the cement is unchallengeable. The bill dated 23.05.2016 produced by the complainant neither bear batch number nor lot number. Had the batch number and lot number been mentioned on the said bill then certainly the OP No.2 should have provided the physical chemical test report of the relevant batch and lot. Complainant has not produced test report, regarding testing of the cement by any laboratory. It is further stated that the complainant has alleged that he started raising construction in the month of July/August, 2015 and completed in the month of August/ September, 2015, whereas the bill allegedly produced by the complainant is of dated 23.05.2016, which clearly shows that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and deserves dismissal.

3.                 To prove his version complainant tendered affidavits, Annexure C/A namely Sh. Raj Kumar, C/B namely Sh. Shiv Kumar, CW-3/B namely Sh. Balwant Singh Anthala alongwith documents Annexure C01 to C14 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for OP No.1 tendered documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP No.2 tendered documents Annexure R4 to R-23 and closed the evidence.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for contesting parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The plea of the complainant is that he completed the construction in the month of August/September 2015. The cement used in the said construction was of inferior quality. To prove this fact he has tendered a bill no.376 in his evidence as Annexure C-1. On perusal of the said bill it is found that the said bill was issued on 23.05.2016 i.e. after the completion of the construction. The cement purchased on 23.05.2016 could not be used in construction, which was completed in the month of August/September, 2015.

7.                In this view of the matter, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 28.03.2019

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)              (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

                      Member                     Member                       President