Haryana

Ambala

CC/431/2022

SUKHDEV SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUKHDEV SINGH

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	431 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	29.11.2022
Date of decision	:	10.04.2024

Sukhdev Singh, ESM, aged about 70 years, son of Mr. Pyara Singh permanent resident of Village Sontli (57), Sub-Tehsil Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, holder of Aadhar Card No.8936-2057-2468.

…..Complainant

Versus

1. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., Cement Business Mktg, SCO-111, 1st Floor, Ambala City, Pin Code 134003, Sector-7.
2. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., 2nd Floor, B Wing, Ahura Centre, Mahabali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.
3. M/s Gupta Trading Co., Opp. P.W.D. Colony, Shahzadpur, Pin Code-134202, District Ambala.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri V.P. Singh, Advocate, legal aid counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Anand Garg, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.       

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

i) To pay Rs.1.5 lacs spent by the complainant towards cost of material and labour charges alongwith interest.

ii) To pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant

                             OR

Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the Complainant is an Ex-serviceman, aged about 70 years, Senior Citizen. He decided to construct a House on his owned land situated in Village Sontli, Sub-Tehsil Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana in the month of January 2022. Relying upon the advertisements given by the OPs regarding the quality of their cement, the complainant decided to purchase it from the OPs.  Accordingly, he consulted and appointed an expert mason, having experience of 34-35 years of construction experience, and started construction of his new house on his owned land and started to dig and fill the foundation for 6 small & big rooms, Baramda, Kitchen & Bathrooms with 4 feet in depth and installed 9 Inch thick Beams under the walls and then spread the DPC on it. He completed the construction work upto Walls with support of 10 R.C.C. Pillars of 9" X 9" at the height of 11 feet, after completion of foundation in the end of April 2022. After that the shuttering material was fixed by the expert persons and rebar mesh contained 4 & 3 suite Saria laid on the shuttering for construction of R.C.C. roof on 01-05-2022 and also fixed some 24 feet long and 1 feet wide Beams in the rebar mash for strengthen of roof. The complainant purchased 90 Bags of Ultra Tech Cement from Authorized Dealer M/s. Gupta Trading Co., Opp. PWD Colony. Shahzadpur, District Ambala vide Invoice No. 234/2022-23 dated 02-05-2022 for Rs. 34200/-. On 02-05-2022, the complainant asked his Mason to arrange the labour and purchased other materials for preparation of R.C.C. roof for next day. On 03-05-2022 R.C.C. Lentred Roof was laid down on 1091 Square feet of area. On 05.05.2022, water was poured and stored by making sand banks on the lantern i.e. this procedure/action was continued for ten days and after this the lantern was allowed to dry and after 15 days the lantern was opened. After opening the lantern, the complainant noticed that  the slope of the lantern from the top was perfect. The lantern was not touched anywhere, nor was there any standing water on the lantern. However, after passage of some time, when it drying up, it developed various cracks therein. The matter was reported to the OPs Nos. 1 & 2, on their Toll Free No.18002003311 on 31.05.2022 which was registered at No.SR478608, but to no avail. He then raised second complaint online vide No.SR503974 on 17.07.2022 and third complaint vide No.SR512701 on 12.08.2022 but to no avail. However, on 16.08.2022, for the first time, an engineer of the OPs visited the premises, whose mobile number is 95881-30176. He inspected the lantern and stated that chemical should have been put in it and the complainant replied that chemical was not used in the lantern, and also he said that the rebar was inserted thickly, due to that reason the stems became in Lantern. On 25.08.2022 a call was received from mobile number 7527067171 i.e. of an engineer of the OPs who came in 5 minutes and inspected the site like level of lantern etc. Mason could not be called as he was away. The said mason thereafter talked to the engineer on phone number 7527067171. The mason told that a solution 1 of 5 Tasle of sand and 9 Tasle of gravel to be prepared in a mixer machine in a handcart of cement and he also told that large Several beams have been inserted inside the 24 feet long lantern from the back wall of the room to the balcony, the shuttering of the lantern has been done exactly right and the net of reeds has been tied by the right artisan and 3 MM and 4 MM Sariya/rebar has been inserted in the lantern. The complainant  then made online complaint on 01.09.2022 vide No. SR 520184. Report UT/NZ/Amb/Sep/22/1 dated 06-09-2022 and opinion submitted by the engineer and complainant's reply is also attached with this complaint. The complainant is not satisfied with the report submitted by the company's engineer on 06.09.2022, because the report prepared only on his own thinking and not prepared on the actual facts. The said engineer wrote that he received complaint on 25.08.2022 and he had came on 26.08.2022 on the spot to check, however he is lying actually the said engineer was came on 25.08.2022 to check the lantern of complainant's house. He also mentioned wrong Pin code of Shahzadpur as 136135 instead of actual Pin Code No.134202. In the report of that engineer, he had written that on 15.05.2022 the complainant purchased 100 bags of ultratech cement, which is totally wrong, because the complainant had purchased 90 bags of ultratech cement on 02.05.2022 from M/s Gupta Trading Co., Shahzadpur. The engineer has written in his report that the mason is not expert in the work, while the mason has 35 years of experience and the mason has made so many big double storey kothis, in and around the village. In the report engineer, he mentioned that 74 bags were used to complete R.C.C. roof lantern of 1042 square feet, which is totally wrong, however, the actual area of R.C.C. Lantern is 1091 square feet and total 84 bags were used to complete the said R.C.C. lantern of area measuring 1091 square feet. The mason, who is also an private civil contractor, had told on phone that for filling up the R.C.C. lantern, he used 3 Tasle cement in addition with 5 small tasle of sand and 9 tasle of bajri mixture, however in the report of engineer, the engineer mentioned wrongly that in 3 Tasle of cement in addition with 6 tasle of sand and 9 tasle of bajri mixture has been used to filling up the R.C.C. lantern. The engineer in his report mentioned that the stems became in lantern due to two big room size 18 X 10.6 feet, which is wrong, whereas in small rooms there are more stem problems than in big rooms. The engineer has written that the house has been built without a map and without the advice of an engineer, whereas it is not necessary to get the map passed inside the village and the experience of an old mason is like that of an engineer. On 11.10.2022, two engineers, who introduced themselves one from Gurugram and one from Ambala, inspected the lantern and accepted that the stems in Lantern have fallen, and told the complainant that they will repair all the stems fallen in lantern and will fill the same with SBR mixture on throughout/under the roof, and all the expenses for the same approximately amounting to Rs.10,000/- will be borne by the company. The complainant replied both the engineers that he had incurred huge amount on construction material like on Sand Rs.5,000/-, on Bajri/Gravels Rs.12,000/- on Saria Rs.60,000/-, on cement Rs.34,200 and also on labour and mason Rs.45,000/- and has suffered loss of around Rs. 1,50,000/- due to inferior quality of cement used in the lantern of his house but the said engineers gave report in favour of the company.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no cause of action, estoppal, no jurisdiction, not come with clean hands and suppressed with true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the OPs No.1 and 2 are engaged in business of manufacturing of cement of different grades under a license duly issued by Bureau of Indian Standard duly empowered under the Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986 (63 of 1986). The company is manufacturing various types of cement and selling the same through its authorized stockiest and retailers only all over the country. Each bag of the cement bears relevant IS Mark number and the quality of cement confirms to ISI Specification. The quality of each bag is ensured by carrying out the physical and chemical tests, which is maintained every day and is also complied on monthly basis. No testing of cement alleged to have been purchased by the complainant has been got done by the complainant as required under the ISI Code issued by the Bureau of Indian Standard. Since the product manufactured is produced under the strict and physical chemical test reports taken every day, therefore the quality of the cement is unchallengeable. The cracks in the lantern is only due to faulty construction method adopted by the mason and due to faulty mixture i.e. ratio of cement, sand and bajri etc. The complainant had also failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as he had not got the sample of the cement tested from the authorized laboratory. On the basis of complaint dated 25.08.2022, the site of the complainant was inspected by the technical team of OPs No.1 and 2 on 26.08.2022, where the complainant had alleged to use the ultra tech cement bags for entire slab casting of approximately 1042 Sq. Feet. The thickness of the slab was 5 inches with mix ratio of 1:2:3 (cement:Sand: aggregate), whereas BIS recommends minimum grade of concrete as M20 (1:1:5:3) for any structural work and therefore for M20 grade, cement bags consumption should be approximately 101 bags against the alleged consumption of 74 bags which hints towards lower cement consumption and excess usage of sand in the mix, which results in cracks and seepages. It was also observed that crack development in slab is result of inadequate structural design in the structural members. The longer span of 38' has been divided into two rooms of 18 X 10'-6" and provided being of 5'-12" size only in between slab. Entire re-enforcement provided by the mason is laid without consultation and technical supervision of qualified consulting structural Engineer. Several factors like poor construction, practice, improper mix proportioning, lack of mixing, inadequate structural design, inadequate and intermittent shuttering placement at the time of casting, shuttering settlement etc. are responsible for the development of cracks in RCC slabs. Detailed reply along with test certificate report was also sent to the complainant. OPs No.1 and 2 gave various suggestions to the complainant but the complainant did not bother. The complainant has not put any proof regarding the use of the cement in the construction of the building. No structure report has been placed on record by the complainant. No experience certificate of alleged mason or any agreement between the complainant and the mason has been placed on record.  The complainant has admitted that he had used cement of 2 different companies. There is no evidence to the effect that the cement allegedly purchased by the complainant is used in the construction of alleged house. In the bill No.234 dated 02.05.2022, provided by the complainant, no Batch number & Lot number has been mentioned, if the same is provided then the OPs No.1and 2 will provide the Test Certificate of such Batch number & Lot number. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Upon notice OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, no cause of action, estoppal, no jurisdiction, not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts etc.  On merits, it has been stated that no structure report has been placed on record by the complainant. No experience certificate of alleged mason or any agreement between the complainant and the mason has been placed on record.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Tikmani, Senior Manager (F & C), Ultratech Cement Limited, Gurugram and affidavit of Vinod Kumar Prop. Gupta Trading Company, Opposite PWD Colony, Shahzadpur, Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A and OP3/A respectively alongwith document Annexure OP-1/1 to OP1/3 and OP-3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
6.           We have heard the legal aid counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.            Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was on account of supply of defective/inferior quality of the cement that the cracks occurred in the lantern of the newly built house of the complainant, yet, by not compensating the complainant for the same, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service. 
8.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 while reiterating their contentions raised in the respective written version submitted that the complainant has failed to prove that the cement supplied to him was of defective/inferior quality, whereas, on the other hand, he was provided with the expert report, wherein, it was clearly opined that the cement sold to him meets BIS standards.
9.           Since, neither the purchase of cement by the complainant from the OPs nor the defects/cracks which arose in lantern of the house of the complainant are in dispute, as such, the only moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant  is entitled for any compensation or not. It may be stated here that though the learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint contended with vehemence that it was on account of supply of defective/inferior quality of the cement that the cracks occurred in the lantern of the newly built house of the complainant, yet, it is significant to mention here that not even a single evidence in the shape of any expert report or otherwise, has been placed on record by the complainant to prove his case. Mere placing on record the photographs of the lantern, showing cracks therein is not sufficient to hold that the said cracks have developed due to defective/inferior quality of cement supplied by the OPs. Cracks may develop in the construction because of many reasons such as faulty mixture of sand, bajri, water, faulty construction by mason etc. On the other hand, there is Test Certificates dated 13.09.2022, Annexure C-9, having been placed on record by the complainant himself, which is a detailed one and it shows that the cement supplied to the complainant complied with the requirements of IS:1489-2015 (Part 1) for Portland Pozzolana Cement (Fly Ash Based) and the amount of Flay Ash addition in finished cement does not vary more than +/- 3% from the declared value. This certificate has been placed on record by the complainant himself and no contrary convincing evidence to this has been placed on record by him.  At the same time, the complainant has not put any proof regarding the use of the cement in the construction of the building. No structure report has been placed on record by the complainant and no experience certificate of alleged mason has been placed on record.  Thus, it cannot be said that the crack in the lantern of the house of the  complainant has occurred due to the cement provided by the OPs and the same might have  occurred due to some other reasons such as faulty mixture of sand, bajri, water, faulty construction by mason etc.
10.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in that regard. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  Certified copy 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:- 10.04.2024

 

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