NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2847/2010

M/S. DLF CEMENT LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.K. BANSAL - Opp.Party(s)

MS. USHA SRIVASTAVA

03 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2847 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 03/06/2010 in Appeal No. 1179/2001 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. M/S. DLF CEMENT LTD. & ANR.C-48, SardulganjBikanerRajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. P.K. BANSALVillage Rabariabas, P.O. JaitaranPali ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MS. USHA SRIVASTAVA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Respondent/complainant after purchasing 320 bags of cement from the petitioner built 22 pillars which started breaking up soon after the construction.  Respondent had to demolish the pillars and rebuilt the same.  Respondent asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac towards price of the cement and costs of demolition and rebuilding


-2-

etc.  Two bags of cement were sent to Mallviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur for testing.            The report of Mallviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur was not put on record.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.38,080/- i.e. the price of 320 bags of cement and Rs.500/- as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.  The State Commission in its order has drawn an adverse interference against the petitioner as inspite of opportunities given to the petitioner, it did not submit the report of Mallviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur.  The State Commission in its order observed thus:

“It is apparent from the order sheet dated 23.5.2000 of the Forum that the learned Advocatge for the appellant was asked to produce the examination report but the examination report is not bought on record.  It is also evident from the order sheet of theForum that any such argument was not produced before the Forum that the appellant had not received the examination report of Malviya REG; Jaipur had not conducted examination of the disputed cement.  Today also, this Commission has

-3-

given opportunity to the learned Advocate for the appellants that even today also if any report forwarded by the College is available with them then they can produce the same.  But today also they are not in a position to produce the report.  In perspective of the above circumstances, if the learned Forum has taken adverse presumption against the appellant regarding the quality of the cement then it cannot be stated as unjustified.  Therefore, we do not find it justified to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Forum.”

         

The State Commission has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner as it failed to produce the report given by Mallviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur.  Dismissed.  No costs.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER