Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President &
Mr. Kumar Gowda, Member
KATWA CEMENTS PVT. LTD. & ANR.—Appellants
versus
MALLAPPA LAXMAN JODAR—Respondent
Appeal No. 364 of 1993—Decided on 30.1.1996
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the jurisdiction to review the findings of the District Forum and to set aside its order if it finds that the District Forum failed to comply with the statutory requirements or that its findings are erroneous and unsustainable.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 13(1)(C) - DEFECTIVE CEMENT - COMPENSATION - EVIDENCE - ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE - PROCEDURE - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS - EFFECT - CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - APPEAL - JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased cement from the opposite party for constructing a concrete roof for his house. He alleged that the cement purchased on certain dates was defective, causing the roof to collapse and resulting in loss. The District Forum awarded compensation to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. It held that the District Forum failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while sending the sample of cement for testing and analysis. The report of the engineer testing the cement, therefore, did not carry any weight. Additionally, there was no material on record to show why the cement was not sent to the National Highway Quality Control Sub-Division, Hubli for testing, as suggested by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Quality Control, Bangalore. The cement was tested after a lapse of almost two years, and there was no evidence to show how the complainant had preserved it during this period.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum complied with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while sending the sample of cement for testing and analysis? 2. Whether the report of the engineer testing the cement carried any weight? 3. Whether there was material on record to show why the cement was not sent to the National Highway Quality Control Sub-Division, Hubli for testing? 4. Whether the cement was tested after a lapse of almost two years, and whether there was evidence to show how the complainant had preserved it during this period?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the District Forum failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while sending the sample of cement for testing and analysis. The report of the engineer testing the cement, therefore, did not carry any weight. 2. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that there was no material on record to show why the cement was not sent to the National Highway Quality Control Sub-Division, Hubli for testing, as suggested by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Quality Control, Bangalore. 3. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the cement was tested after a lapse of almost two years, and there was no evidence to show how the complainant had preserved it during this period.
Final Decision: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismissed the complaint.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— This appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 5.6.1993, passed by the District Forum, Belgaum, in Complaint No. 235/ 91, directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows :
1. O.P. No. 1 is the manufacturer of cement known as KATWA CEMENTS and O.P. No. 2 is its dealer.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased, in all 28 bags of cement from O.P. No. 2 for putting up the sujja, that is, concrete roof of his house. The complainant purchased 5 bags on 10.5.1990,12 bags on 15.8.90,10 bags on 19.8.90 and 1 bag on 8.2.1991. It is the case of the complainant that the cement bags purchased on 10.5.90 and 15.8.1990 were good but the 11 bags of cement purchased on 19.8.90 and 8.2.91 were not good so the sujja that was put up making the use of such a cement, became defective and broke down and in consequence of which the complainant suffered loss. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties filed their version and averred that they were not aware whether the cement alleged to have been purchased from O.P. No. 2 was made use of for putting up of the sujja by the complainant. The opposite parties, further averred that the cement sold to the complainant was not adulterated or defective in any way. The opposite parties, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed During enquiry, the complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and a Lucturer in the Engineering College who had tested the cement, was examined as P.W-2. Ex. P-1 to P-15 came to be marked on the part of the complainant. The opposite party examined D.W-2 and one of the Directors of O.P.I as D.VV-1, a chartered engineer was examined as D.W-3. The documents of the opposite parties came to be maked as Ex. D-1 to D-5.
5. The District Forum, considering this material placed on record by the parties, held that the cement sold by O.P. No. 2 to the complainant was defective in nature and in that view awarded compensation to the complainant in a sum of Rs. 15,000/-.
6. We have called for the records and received. We have perused the material on record.
7. The complainant has produced bills, Exs. P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4, to show that he had purchased 28 bags of cement from O.P. No. 2. they were purchased in the month of August, 1990. The grievance of the complainant is that the cement that was purchased by him on 19.8.1990 and 8.2.1991 were found to be adulterated and in consequence of which the sujja, for which he had made use of that cement, collapsed and sustained loss.
8. This complaint came to be filed in the month of October, 1991. The District Forum obtained the sample cement from the complainanton 14.2.1992. The order sheet dated 14.2.1992 shows that half a bag of cement was taken for sending it for analysis and testing, but it does not show mat the District Forum obtained the sample of the cement from the complainant, sealed it and authenticated it. The order sheet dated 14.2.1992 does not show that half a bag of cement taken from the complainant was sealed and authenticated by the Forum as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P Act, 1986. It also does not show that it was KATWA cement.
9. The said sample, so taken, was sent to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Quality Control, Minor Irrigation, Sub-Division, Bangalore. But the Assistant Executive Engineer, Quality Control, Bangalore sent back the said cement to the Forum without examining the same stating that it had no equipment to test the cement and so the A.E.E., by his letter dated 21.2.92 as per Ex. P-12 suggested that the said cement may be got tested at National Highway, Quality Control Sub-Division, Hubli. He has also stated that it was fully equipped for testing the cement. The District Forum did not send the same to the said National Highwa
