IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioner must come before Consumer Fora with clean hands.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 34/2015, “Ramco Cements Ltd. formerly known as Madras Cements Ltd. versus Anandraj K.N. & Anr.”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 29.11.2014, passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode (Calicut) in consumer complaint No. 55/2008, filed by the present respondent No. 1, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No. 1 Anandraj K.N. purchased 65 bags of cement from respondent No. 2/OP-1 Shaji Thomas for construction of his residential building in Puthuppadi village, District Kozhikode. The said cement had been manufactured by the present petitioner, the Ramco Cements Limited, formerly known as Madras Cements Limited. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that the main RCC slab and slab of bathroom were cast on 03.02.2007, using about 58 bags of the Ramco Cement, purchased from OP-1. However, on the very next day, they saw a number of cracks all over the main slab and the bathroom slab. Water was found leaking from the slabs. The matter was brought to the notice of the OP-1 dealer and subsequently to the OP-2 manufacturer/petitioner, but without any result. The consumer complaint dated 07.03.2008 was then filed, seeking directions to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh for supplying cement of inferior quality to the complainant.

3. During proceedings before the District Forum, the complainant filed an application for appointment of an expert to check the building. Shri Santosh G. Thampi, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology (NIT) Calicut, was appointed as Expert Commissioner, who inspected the building in question on 18.07.2009 after giving due notice to the parties and filed his report dated 25.02.2011. The Expert Commissioner concluded in his report that the cracks in the building could have developed due to poor quality of cement. He also stated that the cost of laying a new slab will be about Rs.1,35,000/-. Based on the report of the Commissioner, the District Forum allowed the complaint on 29.11.2014 and directed the petitioner/OP-2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant towards cost of casting new slab and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and further Rs.5,000/- as cost. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP-2 challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. However, the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner/OP-2 is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4. It was averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-2/manufacturer of cement that there could not be any fault in the quality of cement supplied to the complainant, as they were a well-reputed firm, manufacturing cement since many years and had a well-defined system of inspection, testing and quality control and were under the supervision of the Bureau of Indian Standards. They had installed most modern and sophisticated equipment in their plant. There had not been any complaint from any other quarter regarding the quality of their cement. The learned counsel further stated that it was not clear from record whether the Expert Commissioner had got tested the cement manufactured by them, or the cement made by some other company. There was no mention of any batch number etc. in the sample taken by the Expert. The learned counsel further stated that they had received notice from the Expert Commissioner, in which the date of inspection was mentioned as 20.07.2009, but it was not clear how the said inspection was carried out 2 days earlier, i.e., on 18.02.2009. The learned counsel argued that the results in the report