Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/197

Makhan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Guru Ram Dass Building Material - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Dec 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C. C . No.                   197 of 2018

Date of Institution :       27.11.2018

Date of Decision :          09.12.2019

Makhan Singh son of Mahinder Singh resident of Village Kabal Wala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                         

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Owner/ Proprietor Shree Guru Ram Dass Building Material, Ferozepur road, Faridkot.
2. Director Ultratech Cement, Corporation office at ‘B’ Winder, 2^nd Floor, Ahura Centre, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai.

....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Lakhwinder Singh Dhillon, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Gumdoor Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Sh Amit Chhabra, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against

 

cc no.- 197 of 2018

Ops for providing inferior quality of cement and for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant wanted to purchase cement for construction of his house and for this purpose, he approached OP-1 and on assurance of OP-1 that Ultratech cement manufactured by OP-2 Company is of best quality, he purchased 600 bags worth Rs.225/-each from OP-1 and paid Rs.1,76,798/-to OP-1 for 600 sacks of cement. Complainant used the cement of OP-2 in construction of his house and after construction, he found that after getting dried the plaster, cement started leaving the walls and when complainant enquired about this, he found that cement sold by OP-1 was not of good quality. Complainant was shocked to know that it was of inferior quality and by using the cement of OPs, complainant suffered great financial loss and harassment. Complainant reported the matter regarding inferior quality of cement to OPs and requested them to compensate him for the loss suffered by him, but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests and refused to do anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as for litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

cc no.- 197 of 2018

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.11.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                      On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply wherein submitted that allegations levelled by complainant are incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complaint filed against them is not maintainable as complainant has not suffered any loss. Further averred that Ultratech Cement Company is a product of Aditya Birla Group and is a super brand quality of cement and before selling, it is firstly tested in technical labs at high standard and after getting ISO test certificate from the lab, it is sold in open market through the registered dealers of the company. Every manufacturer product has been tested vide week number and date of despatch number. It is brought before the Forum for every product, there is literature issued by OP-2 vide which mode and method of its use is prescribed, keeping in view the different temperature of environment. There is also specific quantity allowed while adding the cement with sand before its plastering and mason or the concerned person has to comply with all the requisite indications at the time of using the cement of OPs. Complainant has not brought on record any expert evidence or report to prove that sub standard cement was sold to him by OP-1. Complainant has not mentioned the date of construction and total area of construction for the reason that he

cc no.- 197 of 2018

purchased 600 bags of cement on different dates and it is not possible to complete entire construction within time frame and complainant has intentionally concealed all this with some ulterior motive. Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no defect in their cement and there may be many reasons for the loss of complainant like efflorescence in brick wall because of dampness; improper curing before application of plaster; improper curing on plastered surface; improper mixing of dry as well as mortar; improper quality of water, bad quality of brick wall and use of sub standard cement with the cement of opposite party as only 600 bags were purchased by complainant from the registered dealer for the total build up are. It is further averred that complainant is himself stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                       OP-2 also filed reply and took same pleadings as taken by OP-1 in their written statement and submitted before the Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and it is totally denied that cement sold by them was not of good quality. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been refuted being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

cc no.- 197 of 2018

6                                          Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1/A and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-22 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Paraminder Singh Ex OP-1,2/1, documents Ex OP-1, 2/2 to Ex OP1,2/16 and then closed the same on behalf of OPs.

8                                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as opposite parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                                         We have anxiously considered the pleadings of complainant and rival contentions in the light of evidence placed on record. It is observed that case of complainant is that on assurance of OPs that Ultratech cement is of best quality, he purchased 600 bags worth Rs.1,76,798/- from OPs for construction of his house, but after construction, he found that after getting dried, cement started leaving the walls and after enquiry, he was shocked to know that it was of inferior quality and by use of cement sold by OPs, complainant has suffered huge financial loss and harassment. Grievance of complainant is that he reported the matter in respect of inferior quality of cement to OPs and requested them to compensate him for the loss suffered by him, but they paid no heed to his genuine requests and failed to redress his grievance,

cc no.- 197 of 2018

which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, both the OPs stressed  mainly on the point that there is no deficiency in service on their part as there is no defect in cement sold by them, rather complainant has not placed on record clear detail that how much area was got constructed by complainant with the cement of OPs and what quantity of it was used for construction purpose. he purchased cement from OP-1 on different dates but did not specify in complaint that on what date he did construction work with the cement manufactured by them. As per OPs, complainant did not follow the appropriate method for using Ultratech cement as per instructions prescribed by them on every bag of cement sold to complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10                                          Ld Counsel for OPs stressed mainly on the point that complainant has not placed on record any expert evidence to prove that there was any defect in said cement or it was of substandard quality. No specimen of cement was sent to any laboratory for retesting its quality. Moreover, statement of Gursewak Singh, Mason who constructed the house of complainant clears all the doubts regarding substandard or poor quality of cement as he has himself mentioned in his statement given before the Forum that complainant used three types of cement for construction of his house. Complainant used 220 bags of cement of Ultratech Company manufactured by OPs. He used 60 bags of Buildtech Company and 50 bags of cement used by them were of Rock Strong

cc no.- 197 of 2018

Company. Ld counsel for OPs further submitted that Gursewak Singh mason who did construction work in the house of complainant clearly stated that photographs produced by complainant for showing pictures of plaster removing from walls do not belong to the house of complainant. these pictures were not of house of complainant and he also stressed that Ultratech cement used by complainant in construction of his house was of best quality and there was no defect in that. Statement given by mason is very cogent and is of vital importance. Furthermore, Test Certificate for Ultratech Cement placed on record by OPs also proves the fact that after going through several tests, cement sold by OPs was of very good quality and it complies with all the physical and chemical requirements of ISI and was of superior quality.

11                                     From the above discussion, evidence placed on record and after going through the contentions and pleadings of respective parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and accordingly, complaint filed by complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 9.12.2019          

                                      (Parampal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)   

                                                 Member                           President