Date of Filing : 13.01.2012
Date of Order : 17.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 17th APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 02 / 2012
Sri. Radhakrishna.N.
S/o. Narayanappa, Aged about 32 years,
R/o. Harohalli Extension, Kasthurinagar,
Kolar.
(By Sri. R. Raghupathi Gowda, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. P. Sidiq Pasha,
Aged about 33 years,
Alameen Hardware Stores, NH-4 Byepass,
Near Sagar Hotel, Bangalore Road,
Kolar – 563 101.
2. The Proprietor,
Manufacturer of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.,
Adithya Birla Group Unit, Rajshree Cement Works,
Adithyanagar, Malkhed Road,
Pin – 585 292
Karnataka.
3. Sri. Srinivasa,
Ultra Tech Cement, District Dealers,
R/o. Srinivasa Stores,
Jayanagar, 8th Cross, Tekal Road,
Kolar.
(By Sri. S.J. Sanghvi, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.63,542/- as compensation are necessary
On 22.01.2011 at the rate of Rs.315/- per Bag, Complainant has purchased 25 Bags of Cement from OP1 by paying Rs.7,775/-. He used the said Cement for building’s moulding work near Harohalli extension. After curing of the moulding for 22 days, Complainant had removed centering of the said moulding. At that time, the entire roofing of the entire moulding completely fell down with pieces suddenly. Immediately Complainant approached OP1. Complainant came to know that the Cement purchased by him is of old stock and it has lost its capacity. Complainant is a poor Contractor and doing mason work. Due to the said act of the OP1 Complainant has lost Rs.63,542/-. Complainant issued notice on 21.12.2011 to which OP sent an untenable reply on 03.01.2012. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief the version of OPs are:-
Complainant has purchased the Cement for commercial purposes. He is not a consumer and it is not a consumer dispute. OP1 purchased Cement in the Open Market from OP3 who is a dealer of OP2. OP2 is the manufacturer of best/brand quality Cement. Complainant had obtained Cement for Javed Khan, owner of M/s. Heera Transport for profit. Complainant had purchased the Cement from the sub-dealer OP1. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP3. Supply of old Cement or incapacitated Cement is denied. Complainant has intimated about the incident after RCC slab (debris) were removed by him clandestinely with an ulterior motive and dishonest intention. OP demanded sample to be sent for testing and on great persuasion Complainant had given sample of the RCC slab, which was sent to OP2 for testing which was referred to best laboratory M/s. Civil Aid Technologies Ltd. It was revealed that contents of the Cement in the said concrete sample was only 6.96% instead of 12 to 12.5% which clearly goes to show that the Complainant himself is liable for the said alleged mishap. For the wrongful act of Complainant, these OPs are not liable. This cannot be decided in a summary way, but to be decided in a Civil suit. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed their respective affidavits and documents. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
(B) Whether the Cement purchased by the Complainant is old stock and lost its capacity?
(C) What Order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Negative
(B) Negative
(C) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents and affidavits on record, it is an admitted fact that OP2 is the manufacture of the Cement to which OP3 is a dealer and OP1 is sub-dealer. It is also an admitted that on 22.11.2011 at the rate of Rs.315/- per Bag Complainant had purchased 25 Bags of Cement from OP1 for Rs.7,785/-. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant is a “CONTRACTOR” and he purchased the Cement for his contract work of putting moulding for the building of Sri. Javed Khan, owner of Heera Transport and that Cement was used for the building near Harohalli extension, Mahalakshmi Layout , Kolar.
7. The Complainant simply stated that he has used the said Cement for the said moulding of the said person and after curing 22 days when he removed centering, moulding fell down. This is very bald plea. Complainant never stated on what date he has put the moulding? On what date and from what date to what date he has cured the moulding with water? On what date the said moulding fell down? and on what date he intimated to the OPs. These things are not found in any place of pleadings of either of the parties. In an event, moulding fell down is an admitted fact.
8. The entire case of the Complainant is that this is old stock and the said Cement has lost its capacity and because of that this incident had taken place. This has been specifically denied by the OPs. Complainant never got tested of the debris from the expert to know whether the Cement used was old stock and had lost its capacity. OPs have clearly stated that they came to the spot and collected the portion of the debris and sent it to the Laboratory and Laboratory after testing had given report stating that the Cement that has been used in the concrete is of 6.96% and not more. The content of Cement to be used in concrete should be more than 12%. That means Complainant himself has used lesser quantity of Cement in the Concrete in the moulding. Because of his using lesser Cement with an intention to get more profit, he has suffered moulding fell down. For this, how can OP be blamed? The Certificate of the concerned Laboratory i.e., M/s. Civil Aid Technologies Ltd. clearly disproves the case of the Complainant and proves the case of the Ops. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs nor the Cement sold was old stock nor it had lost its capacity.
9. Here the Complainant has purchased the Cement for the purpose of commercial activities i.e., “CONTRACT WORK”. Hence, Complainant is not a consumer. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
3. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
