DATE OF DISPOSAL: 19.02.2024

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

            2. The complainant purchased five bags of Dalmia cement on 26.04.2021 for Rs.1600/- from O.P. vide invoice No. 0251 dated 26.04.202. The complainant paid the said amount to the O.P. through cheque No. 430778. The said cement bags were leveled with the date of packet 13.03.2021 and a No: 418 in all the 5 bags. The complainant tried on 26.04.2021, 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 to replace the 5 bags of cement purchased from the O.P. after getting information from the labourer. The labourer informed to the complainant that, “most of the bags are absorbed moisture and cements are stocks one and one packet completely hard which cannot be used for any purpose”. The complainant completed the construction work within 3 days with many difficulties and also adds another cement packet for the purpose. Being aggrieved the complainant filed the case and prayed to grant relief as follows:

(A) Sustained loss towards labour   …….  Rs.5000.00

(B) Invoice/Bill cost.                          ……..Rs. 1600.00

(C) Mental agony.                               …….Rs.10,000.00

To prove his case the complainant filed two numbers of bills and a photograph in the case.

            3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the O.P. The O.P. appeared through his advocate in the case but did not challenge the case.

            While matter stood thus the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and written argument. On analyzing the available documents, complaint and evidences in the case record the complainant has not filed any corroborative documents related to contain sub standard quality of the cement in said cement bags. The complainant has not filed any affidavit of the labourer in support of his case. Further it is apparent from the evidence of the complainant that he used completely the said cements in question in construction work. Above all the complainant not filed any empty cement bag, sample of cement and expert opinion on absurd moisture cement supplied by the O.P in the case.  In absence of an expert opinion, it contravenes the stands of the complaint.

            In considering the ratio decidendi in Suresh versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 Live law (SC) 1017, the Commission dismiss the case against the O.P. No cost.

                 This case is disposed of accordingly.

                The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

             A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 19.02.2024