::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.87/2015.
Date of filing: 03.12.2015.
Date of disposal: 31.08.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Hanmanthrao S/o Mallikarjun,
Age:43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Mudbi Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar.
( By Sri.Hanmanthraya Sindol., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) Sri.J.Revansiddeshwar Cement Agency,
by its prop. Kallayya swamy,
Revansiddeshwar complex, Near bus stand,
Mudbi-585437 Tq: Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar.
2). Corporate Office,
Cement House 121 Maharushi Kaveri road,
by its C.E.O.
3). A.C.C. Limited, Sales Unit, B.D. Patil,
Plaza 1st Floor Karnataka Bank road,
New cotton Market, Hubli Dist: Dharwad.
(By. R.1.Sri.K.H.Patil., Adv.
R.2.and R.3. Exparte.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P.s alleging supply of spurious goods and compensation therefore.
2. The complainant avers that, he is lawful owner of property bearing House No.505, measuring 40’x 30’ situated in village Mudbi Tq: Basavakalyan acquiring the same from the previous lawful owner. The Panchayath khatha of the properly stands in his name and he is in lawful possession of the same. He had put up construction of a commercial complex aver the property about four years back, measuring 38’x 25’and wanted to have a further construction of similar dimension on the first floor.
3. That, he purchased 85 bags of cement from O.P.No.1, who was the dealer in Cement of A.C.C. Brand under the O.P. No.s. 2 and 3 in between 30.12.2014 to 04.01.2015 and the R.C.C. slab using these cements were casted on 04.01.2015. He had taken due care to prepare the mortar by using proper portions of cement, sand of good quality and stone chips and also had used good quality of steels. The curing was also done properly as per structural engineering parameters. The complainant also claims that, at one point of time, the officials of the opponent company had visited the spot of structure and he has demonstrated the leakage in the roof by pouring water. He further claims to have preserved sample of cement used in the construction. (No such sample ever produced).
4. The complainant further claims and produces two certificates of Test from M/s Appa Institute of Engineering and Technology, Gulbarga dated 04.05.2015. As per the say of the complainant, the monsoon got set in the month of June 2015 and there was heavy rainfall on 11 and 12 of June 2015. The 1st floor of the complainants cracked completely and rain water was leaking inside the building. As per the complainant, the officials of the Appa Institute, had opined that, the cement used in the structure was of low quality which was the cause of leakage entailing low quality construction.
5. The complainant further asserts that, on interaction the 1st O.P. never responded to him. A legal notice was also got served upon the opponents on 18.06.2015 and the same was replied by the Advocate of the opposite side in an evasive manner.
6. As per the further assertions of the complainant, he had sustained losses owing to the poor quality of cement sold by the O.P.No.1 in his capacity as dealer of the other opponents. The complainant having computed his loss on different heads is before this forum seeking compensations to that extent Rs.9,00,000/-.
7. Upon notice, the O.P.s No.2 and 3 have not participated in the proceedings and were placed exparte. The O.P.No.1 is the lone participant.
8. The O.P.No.1 filing written versions had denied all allegations and additionally, misinterpreting section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in his own ways has questioned about the jurisdiction of this Forum to try this complaint. Albeit painstakingly, the opponent No.1 has tried to analyse the definitions of the terms ‘complainant’, ‘complaint’, ‘Consumer Dispute’ and ‘Service’ contained in section 2(1) of the Act, is conspicuously silent on the term spurious goods defined in Section 2(1) (00) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This part of the opponents’ assertions being vague and self serving, we ignore the same.
9. Both sides have submitted documents, evidence affidavits, written arguments and the sole opponent has further led evidence of two witnesses, who claim to have purchased cements from O.P.No.1 proximate to the purchase of complainant and not to have found any shortfall in the quality of such purchased cement. The complainant had got examined the Head of Department, Civil Engineering Branch, Appa Engineering College, Kalburgi as witness.
10. During the course of trial, few queer developments took place. The complainant had some “Cubes” allegedly from the R.C.C. slab with him and on his submissions such cubes with testing fees were sent to street (strut) Geotech Research Laboratory, Banashankari III stage, Bangalore-560085 on 24.12.2016 for testing and opine the quality of cement used. The Laboratory in turn vide its’ letter date: 27.02.2017 conveyed that Bureu of Indian standards is authenticated organization to conduct the test and hence once again on 28.04.2017, the B.I.S. was sent the cube and testing fee. On 19.05.2017, the B.I.S. returned back the D.D. sent to them and requested to provide complete details of the product i.e. cement with a sealed bag of cement for investigation. The complainant did not have residual full bag of cement and then insisted to examine the experts from the Appa College of Engineering, Gulbarga.
11. At the complainants’ motion, Sri Rajshekhar S/o Narsaya Yargol, Head of Department of Civil Engineering Branch of Appa College was summoned to adduce evidence as P.W.2. He has filed evidence affidavit on 10.08.2018 and further was examined on oath in Court. He has testified that, he along with another colleque Sri Lingaraj Patty had verified the structure of the complainant on 02.05.2015, conducted Rebound Hammer Test from which was found the reading at 15N/sq.MM2, instead of the complainants revelation of 20N/Sq. M.M2. He has further testified that, the complainant had not produced the samples of cement before them. He opined that, cement used not to be stored for longer period and the Batch No. of the cement was not available for them. He further has testified that, mixed proportion of water and cement in hardened Concrete cannot be ascertained nor the quality of the cement. He also has detailed the proportions of cement, sand and chips to be used for R.C.C. slabs. In the cross examination, it was disclosed by him that, 15 Newton (load bearing capacity) per mm2 is of good qualitative assessment and there is no chance of crack developing in such a R.C.C. slab. He further testified that, quality of cement used in structure cannot be authoritatively said as bad.
12. From the discussions, supra, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove his allegation of providing spurious goods by the opponent and hence instead of further wastage of time and uncalled for analysis proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The complaint is dismissed as not proven.
- Party (s) to bear their own costs.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of August 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Copy of registered sale deed No.3623/2006-07 of the
office of sub register Basavakalyan.
- Annexure.B– Copy of Mutation register of Mudbi Gram Panchayat
Tq. Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar. - Annexure. C- Copy of tax paid receipt of Mudbi Gram Panchayat for
the year 2009-10. - Annexure. D– Original tax invoice No.293 date: 30.12.2014 in favour
of the complainant. - Annexure.E- Original tax invoice No.297 date: 04.01.2015 in favour
of the complainant. - Annexure.F- Original re-bond hammer test report date: 02.05.2015
of Appa institute of Engineering and Technology
Gulbarga. - Annexure.G- Original test report on fine aggregate date:02.05.2015
of the same institute. - Annexure. H- Office copy of legal notice date:18.06.2015.
- Annexure. J to L- Original postal receipts.
- Annexure. M- Original reply notice date: 17.07.2015.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1- Original tax invoice No.298 date: 05.01.2015 in favour of one Bandu S/o Dhansing.
- Annexure.R.2- Original tax invoice No.295 date: 02.01.2015 in favour of Deepak Shrimant Paladi.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri Hanmanthrao S/o Mallikarjun (copmplainant).
- P.W.2- Sri Rajshekhar S/o Narsayya Yagol, Head of Department of
Civil Engineering Branch Appa Engineering College
Kalburagi.
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Sri Kallayya Swamy, Proprietor J. Revansiddeshwar Cement
Agency Mudbi (opponent-1). - R.W.2- Sri Deepak S/o Srimanth Village Kinniwadi
Tq. Basavakalayan. - R.W.3- Sri Bandu S/o Dhansing village Hattyal Tanda
Tq. Basavakalyan
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
