Punjab

Sangrur

CC/345/2015

Rashidan Parveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wazira Iron Cement Store - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                    

                                                                   Complaint no. 345                                                                                                 

                                                                     Instituted on:  26.05.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    05.10.2015

 

1.     Rashidan Parveen w/o Mohd. Younas son of Mohd. Niaz,

2.      Mohd. Younas son of Mohd Niaz, both residents near Niaz Soap Factory, Eidgah Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.  

…. Complainants.    

                       

                                         Versus

 

1.       Wazira Iron Cement Store, Ludhiana Road, Bye Pass, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.

2.     Ambuja Cement Limited Near Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Malout Road, Bathinda, Punjab, through its Incharge.

3.     Ambuja Cement Limited, 248, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020 through its Incharge/M.D.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :    Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

 

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rashidan Parveen & Mohd. Younas, complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  they purchased 100 bags of Ambuja Cement @ Rs.265/p per bag from the OP No.1  vide bill number 2399 dated 26.09.2013 for Rs.26,500/-  and 82 bags at the rate of Rs.280 per bag vide bill number 2762  dated 24.10.2013 for Rs.22960/- .  The complainants used the aforesaid cement for construction of  their new house and plastered  the same through mason Mohammad Jamil son of Jamal Din resident of village Gaunspura, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur and he constructed the said house up to cement plaster stage which was carried out in cement mortar of 1:4 ratio and was properly cured for 15 days.  The bricks walls were also made properly wet before plastering the same  but  after some days plaster work on outer wall of  adjoining neighbor  and the top of roof i.e.  tile , terracing, where on the cement  plaster work was carried out  and developed a  lot of cracks in tiles  terracing due to poor quality of cement and  cement was peeling off. The complainants immediately informed  and lodged the complaint to OP No.1 who discussed the matter with OP No.2 and both the OPs assured  the complainants  that compensation will be paid to the complainants. An engineer of the OP No.2 namely Akhilesh Kumar took the sample of cement  in question  and also inspected the  premises and told that there seems some manufacturing defect in the said lot.  The complainants also took loan of Rs.8,00,000/-  from Punjab National Bank  but to supply of deteriorated quality of cement, entire construction work has halted. The complainants also  suffered  a loss  of Rs.10,00,000/-due to supply of poor quality cement.  The complainants also got checked / inspected their building from Ar. Rakesh Jindal of Dhuri who  also gave his report on 01.01.2015. The complainants request the OPs to pay compensation but nothing was done.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the value of cement bags Rs.49460/- along with interest @12% per annum from 24.10.2013,    

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation  and Rs.5,00,000/-   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi, jurisdiction and cause of action have been taken up.  On merits,  it is submitted that  complainant failed  to place before this Forum that what was the total constructed area and what was the total  cement consumed  and whether some other brand of  cement was used or not. There is no question of  engineer visiting the complainant site as no complaint with regard  to quality of cement was ever received by either OP or the OPs No.2&3.  There is no occasion for the complainant to request to the OP about returning of the original title deeds as there is no reason, the OP who is only the dealer of the OPs No.2&3.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs No.2&3, preliminary objections on the grounds of cause of action, locus standi  and  concealment of material facts have been taken up. It is submitted that  OP No.1 is an authorized dealer  appointed by the company through whom the company ensures the product of  the company to reach  to the hand of the customer.  It is submitted that the company is manufacturing  ordinary Portland cement (OPC)  and PPC  with guaranteed strength as per Indian Standard  Specification and selling the same through its Stockiest and Retailers all over the country.  Each bag of the cement manufactured and sold through its stockiest and Retailers is of ISI  mark No.1489 ( Part-I) 1991 and the quality of the cement is ensured as per Indian Standard Specification for OPC and PPC cement. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased cement from OP no.1. it is submitted that  complainant failed  to place before this Forum that what was the total constructed area and what was the total  cement consumed  and whether some other brand of  cement was used or not. No complaint was ever made  to either OP no.1 or the OPs No.2&3.  It is no out of the place  to mention that no engineer can just by having a glance can conclude about the quality of  cement.  The  quality of cement can only be concluded  through  sampling and testing  as per norms laid down  by the Bureau of Indian Standards. There is no loss to the complainant which can be attributed upon the cement manufactured  by the OP. The allegations are vague in nature  and does not prove any defect on account of the quality of the cement which is much superior than even the standard prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The complainant has not averred or disclosed  the methodology applied  by Mr. Rakesh Jindal  through which he has arrived at his conclusions, hence the report is baseless incorrect and is nonest in the eyes of law thus deserves to be ignored.  The complainant has taken the  loan against the property from the bank  against which bank must have  taken the original title deeds, now the complainant himself has admitted  not to have  paid back the loan and has filed the present complaint with sole intention to illegally extort  money by misusing  the process of law. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and closed evidence.

5.             In the present complaint, the version of the complainant is that the Ops have supplied substandard 182  bags  of the cement  and as a result of the same  the cement mortar is not gripping tiles and the cement has started peeling off  and as such the complainant has been put to financial loss whereas the  OPs have submitted that  the cement  supplied by them  is of high quality  and is also certified  by independent  authority viz: Bureau of  Indian Standards, which is a Government of India undertaking and final authority with regard  to the specifications  and ISI mark is put on total sealed bags of the cement  before sale.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on the record, we find that the complainants have placed on record expert report which is on record is Ex.C-8 in support of their version with regard to the poor quality of cement supplied by the OPs.  From the perusal of the report, we find that the same has been prepared what has been informed to the expert by mason Mohd. Jamil regarding the poor quality  of the cement. In the report it has been mentioned that “  

 “              I questioned the Mason Mohd. Jamil, regarding  the procedure of  cement plaster adopted  by him. He answered  that the cement  plaster work was carried out  in cement mortar  of ( 1:4 ratio)  & was properly cured for  (15 days). Brick walls were also made properly wet  before plastering the same. He also told  that he  has used wooden ‘ Garmala’ while plastering the walls. He specifically told me that there  is a manufacturing defect  in cement due to this  reason the plaster of the building is peeling & falling down.”

7.             So, it means that the report is  based on what the mason  said about the mason work done by him in October 2013 whereas the report of the expert is dated 1.1.2015 and that too when the same is not supported by the affidavit of the mason Mohd. Jamil.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs have argued vehemently that there is no evidence led by the complainant with regard  to total constructed house and with regard to the other constructed work done with the same cement as  182 bags cannot be consumed  on the outer wall of the house  and on the roof  there is no evidence on record and neither the expert has mentioned and photographs of the other constructed work which was done with the same cement  because if the cement is of poor quality then the other constructed  portion of the house should have also  been damaged but as there is no such evidence so it cannot be said that the cement is of poor quality. Rather the peeling off the plaster may have been due to  bad  workmanship of the mason and not due to poor quality of the cement  as the cement is only one of the ingredient and not the sole ingredient for proper construction. The Ops have placed on record document Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 in support their version that the quality  of the cement is not of poor quality.

9.             Further, the complainant has been demanding  from the OPs to return the original four title deeds of the house of the complainant but from  the perusal of the documents, we do not find any evidence with regard to the depositing of the title deeds with the OPs.

10.           So,  in the absence of any cogent reasonable and reliable evidence we do not find any merit in the present complaint and accordingly the complaint is dismissed however with no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

October 5, 2015.

 

 

 

 

              ( K.C.Sharma)                  (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                     

                 Member                           President

 

 

BBS/-