Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/137

Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ultratech Cement Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                                                   Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2022

                                                                          Date of Decision:  17.03.2023

 

Prem Singh aged about 68 years son of Dalip Singh, resident of Village Majafat Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

                                                                                      …..Complainant

                                                 Versus

1. Ultrach Cement Limited, Bagheri Cement Works Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan (HP) through its General Manager Production
2. Ultrach Cement Limited, Bagheri Cement works Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan (HP) through its General Manager (HR)
3. Ultrach Cement Limited, registered office B wing 2^nd Floor Ahura Center Mahakali Caes Road, Andheri (East Mumbai)
4. Jyoti Spare Parts Village Dalla Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar through its proprietor Jaswinder Singh (Authorized Dealer Ultra Tech Cement)

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

 

                   KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

 

For complainant:            Prem Singh, complainant in person

 

For Ops:                         Sh. Sumit Pasricha, Adv. For Ops No.1 to 3

                                      OP No.4 exparte  

         

 ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the complainant has raised the construction of his house at Village Dalla in the month of April 2022 and construction work of the house of the complainant is completed in the month of July 2022. The OP No.4 has approached the complainant and requested him to use the cement of Ops company as this cement is superior than the other company’s cement and the complainant on the assurance and allurement of OP4 used the cement of OP1 company by purchasing the cement from the OP4 and in the whole construction work the complainant had used about 300 bags and the complainant has purchased the cement bags @ 440/- per bag. The OP4 has issued the bill of 171 bags only to the complainant. The complainant has spent more than Rs.7,00,000/- on the construction work of his house. After two months of the completion of construction works, the cracks have been seen in the walls of the rooms and also cracks on the linter and rainy water has started come from the linter which seems that the cement sold by the Ops is of inferior quality. It is further averred that when the complainant has noted the cracks on the walls and linter of his house, then the OP4 has approached the Ops No.1 & 2 and the Ops No.1 & 2 have send their persons to the house of the complainant and they said that there is some defect in the cement and they assured that they will send the case of the complainant to their senior officials so that adequate compensation may kindly be given to the complainant but till date no action has been taken by the Ops. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental, physical and monetary loss.
2. Upon notice, Ops No.1 to 3 have appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint filed by the complainant just to harass and humiliate the answering Ops; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops. On merits,  it is stated that complainant never approached to the answering Ops. Rather on the request of the OP4, the technical team of the OP has visited to the house of complainant but the complainant to check the same and found that there is a substandard material was used on the construction of the house and complainant also failed to give the information as how he has used the product of the answering OP with other constructed material as there was no meson or any other person was present. Ops No.1 to 3 prayed that complaint is without any merits and deserves to be dismissed with cost.
3. The OP4 has choosen to remain exparte vide order dated
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kakhani, Regional Commercial Head Ultratech as Ex.RW1 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence.
5. As per investigation report, Ex.R4, conducted by Sh. Shubham Dogra, Territory Manager-Tech Cust Solution, the some of the observation of hte report are reproduced as under:-

3. “the slope of the slab was not proper all throughout the area. Slope of the slab for water drainage was not proper and water is logging near the centre of the slab, it reflects the poor workmanship during the casting. The water logging on the slab surface may lead to the seepage.

5. Poor workmanship in the mixing and rations of hte concerete was founded as the slab area mentioned by the complainant was approximately 800 Sq. Ft and number of bags used was 70 number. As observed slab thickness was near about 5 inches and concrete was of M20 grade.

For M20 grade of concrete comprise of ration of cement, sand aggregate as 1:1:5:3 respectively and as per said ration, the minimum number of cement bags required for concreting of slab must be 75 numbers where as customer has used only 70 cement bags.

As observed the brick work and plaster done over the slab edge were not in proper shape and finishing which indicate the poor workmanship of the contractor.

As observed on the site, problems were accrued due the improper concrete mix proportion, improper curing and poor workmanship.

6. From the technical report, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed but with a direction to the OPs to deliver technical support during reconstruction of the subject matter property.  Free certified copies be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the record room.
7.  

(Kuljit Singh)

President

 

 

 

(Ramesh Kumar Gupta)

Member