Haryana

Ambala

CC/44/2020

Raj Kumar Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pritam Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Vansh Chawla

01 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :      44 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :     03.02.2020.                                                    Date of decision     :     01.06.2022.   

Raj Kumar Walia son of Shri Amrit Lal, aged 63 years, resident of House No.228, New Vivek Vihar, Ranjeet Nagar, Ambala City-134003.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Pritam Traders, Ranjeet Nagar, Ambala City.
2. Duraton Cement through its authorized Authority, A-12, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101, (email:info@duratoncement.com).

                                                                           ….…. Opposite parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Rohit Dhiman, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Kamal Singla, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.  

 

ORDER:    SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

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’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs. Five Lacs as damages to the complainant due to the cracks in the roofs which are now required to be re-laid afresh and for financial loss for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.33,000/-, as litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.       Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a residential plot in Vivek Vihar, Ranjeet Nagar, Ambala City, in the year 2018. Complainant started construction of his residential house and purchased JK Cement for being used for foundation and for raising the construction up to roof level. Since, complainant was to construct the roof, therefore, visited the shop of OP No.1, to purchase cement who represented to the complainant that the Cement manufactured by OP No.2 is of best quality and is durable and has a long life and representative of OP No.2 shall visit the site also to guide about the construction of RCC roofs. Complainant on this false representation of OP No.1, purchased 80 Bags of Cement manufactured by OP No.2 vide cash Memo No.79 dated 26.10.2018 for constructing RCC roofs. Complainant got constructed RCC roof in the presence and guidance and instructions of representative of OP No.2 but just after three to four months after the construction of RCC roofs, the roofs started showing cracks at different places on which the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and told him about the cracks developed in the lintels. Op No.1 informed the OP No.2 and officials of Op No.2 visited the residence of the complainant almost six months after repeated complaints to inspect the lintel. The officials of OP No.2 started expressing excuses despite the fact that the lintel roofs were laid under the table guidance of official of OP No.2. The official of the OP No.2 gave written advice to the complainant to get the same repaired at his own level and also fix tiles on the slab to conceal the cracks. Thus the officials of the OP No.2, simply wanted to suppress the poor and low quality of the cement manufactured by Op No.2. Hence, the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version raised the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, not come to the clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that complainant purchased the 80 bag of cement from OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that if any negligence occurred, it is due to the contractor who raised the construction work whether due to the inappropriate proper mixture of sand, bazri, cement or quantity of water. Complainant unnecessarily dragged the blame of said problem over the OPs who are acted in a good faith and has no concern with this alleged problem. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it with costs.

4.       Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version raised the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action jurisdiction, not come to the clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it is stated that complainant has purchased the 80 bags of cement from OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that if any negligence occurred, it is due to the contractor who raised the construction work whether due to the inappropriate proper mixture of sand, bazri, cement or quantity of water. Complainant dragged OPs unnecessarily who are acted in a good faith and has no concern with this alleged problem. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it with costs.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-301 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

6.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.       During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as narrated in the complaint. He further argued that in support of his contention placed on record a customer Feedback Form, Annexure C-2,  issued by the Engineer of the OP No.2, in which he has stated that “I observed that cracks are showing on and below the slab, on last raining water came from crack customer repaired it before 10 days ago. I advised to customer repair by “V” grade and tile work on slab.

8.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 and 2 has submitted that complainant purchased 80 bags of cement from the OP No.1 and if any defect in the construction work occurred, it is due to the contractor who raised the construction work whether due to the inappropriate proper mixture of sand, bazri, cement or quantity of water. There is no other evidence except Annexure C-2, placed on record by the complainant, in the support of his complaint. No expert report is also placed on record by the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs also placed on record the documents Annexure C-1 to C-301, to establish that the product of cement sold to many customers and no complaint was received from any customer as the OP No.2 is a reputed company and said company is not selling a sub-standard cement to its customers.

9.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased 80 bags cement from the OP No.1 and manufactured by OP No.2. The complainant placed on record only one document i.e Annexure C-2, which is feedback form that is no sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. More so, no expert report has been placed on record by the complainant, to prove that the OP has committed deficiency in service. Complainant failed to establish that the cement was of sub-standard or poor quality. In the case of LAXMI versus SATBIR 1(2008) CPJ 186 (SCDRC U.T. Chandigarh) wherein it has been held that:- “Goods-Poor and sub-standard quality-Lack of expert evidence in support-Sample of cement not sent for laboratory analysis-Cement will not have binding force if more quantity of sand is mixed in cement-Inferior or sub-standard quality cement supplied, not proved-No relief entitled”. Considering all the facts and circumstances, referred to above, we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove his case. Be that as it may, we do not find any merits in the complaint filed by the complainant; consequently, we dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. 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: 01.06.2022.

 

 

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

              Member                                Member                President

 

 

Present:       Shri Rohit Dhiman, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Kamal Singla, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2. 

 

 

                   Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

 

Announced on:01.06.2022.

 

 

 

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

              Member                         Member                       President