Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 253.
Instituted on : 05.08.2013.
Decided on : 05.08.2015.
Gaurav Building Material situated at Line Par, Gijhi Road, Sampla District Rohtak through Proprietor Dayanand s/o Late Sh. Sher Singh r/o Dev Colony, Gijhi Road, Sampla.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Parashar Sons, Railway Road, Kath Mandhi, Sampla District Rohtak through Authorised signatory.
- Cement Division Jai Parkash Association Limited, Jegu Village Khukhrana Post Office Asan, District Sonepat, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Dharamender Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased 50 bags of cement for a sum of Rs.14500/- i.e. Rs.290/- each vide bill no.453 dated 29.08.2012 from the opposite party no.1. It is averred that out of which 25 bags of cement were defective and the same were found in seized condition and the complainant made the complaint to opposite party no.1 who assured that he will complaint to opposite party no.2. But opposite party no.1 & 2 did not paid any heed towards his requests. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of 25 bags from the opposite parties alongwith compensation to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.2 did not appear and as such after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.12.2013 of this Forum and further on filing amended title, notice was again sent to opposite party no.2 through registered post but opposite party no.2 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.12.2014 of this Forum. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is admitted that complainant had purchased the cement from the opposite party no.1. It is averred that complainant purchases cement bags from opposite party on credit basis and total amount of Rs.55000/- is due towards him. It is denied that 25 bags were found in seized condition. In fact the complainant had taken the delivery of the cement bags by checking all the cement bags and all of bags were found in good condition and there is no question of supply of inferior quality of cement to the complainant by the opposite party no.1. It is averred that complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased 50 bags of cement from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.14500/- on dated 29.05.2012. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, out of 50 bags, 25 were found in seized condition and the complainant has sought refund of the same. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that opposite party no.1 had purchased the alleged bags from the opposite party no.2 and had made a statement that opposite party no.1 is dealer of opposite party no.2 and if there is any defect in the alleged bags, manufacturer is liable for the same. To prove its contention, opposite party no.1 has placed on record copy of bill Ex.R1 dated 28.08.2012.
After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the bill Ex.R1 the opposite party no.1 had purchased the alleged cement from the opposite party no.2 vide bill no.120601837 and the customer TIN No. is 06732824339. The contention of opposite party no.1 is that if there is any defect in the alleged cement, manufacturer(opposite party no.2) is liable for the same. But opposite party no.2 did not appear to contest the proceedings and was proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite party no.2 has nothing to say in the matter. As such the allegation leveled against the opposite party no.2 stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the exparte complaint upheld”. The aforesaid law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of 25 bags of cement i.e. Rs.7250/-(Rupees seven thousand two hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.08.2013 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the 25 bags of cement to the opposite parties. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.08.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
