Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President and Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
HUKUM SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal No. 11 of 2008
Decided on : 09-05-2011
Mr. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. D.S. Adalakha, Advocate, for the Respondent
The judgment established the importance of following the prescribed procedure for testing goods in cases of alleged defects, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(1)(c). It also emphasized the need for conclusive evidence to prove sub-standard quality of goods.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Sub-standard Cement - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(1)(c)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased cement from the appellant, alleging that it was of sub-standard quality and caused damage to his property. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of the cement and pay compensation. The opposite parties appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not prove that the cement supplied was sub-standard. It emphasized that the strength of the cement depends on various factors, such as the ratio and kind of sand mixed in the cement, water, and place of mixture. The court held that the District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence and legal position, and thus, committed a grave error in holding the opposite parties deficient for supplying sub-standard cement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the opposite parties were liable for supplying sub-standard cement and causing damage to the complainant's property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(1)(c) requires proper analysis or test of the goods to determine any defect, and the evidence did not establish the sub-standard quality of the cement. It also highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedure for testing the goods in such cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal was ordered to be refunded to the appellants.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the appellant-opposite parties have been held deficient for supplying of sub-standard cement to the complainant (respondent herein).
2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased 45 bags of A.C.C. Cement for Rs. 9,450 from the appellant-opposite party No. 1 who is the authorized dealer of the opposite party No. 2. According to the complainant the opposite party No. 1 issued bill for 20 bags only on 3.8.2006 and did not issue any bill for other 25 bags which were purchased by him on 16.8.2006. It is further the case of the complainant that the cement supplied by the opposite parties to him was of sub-standard quality cracks developed in the walls where the cement was used in construction of his house due to which the construction/plaster started falling down. The complainant further alleged that he reported the matter to the opposite parties upon which his house was inspected by the Engineers of the opposite parties who reported that the cracks had developed due to defective/substandard cement but despite repeated requests the opposite parties did not pay any compensation to the complainant. Thus, alleging it as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant sought direction to the opposite parties to refund the price of the cement and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of financial loss, mental agony, physical harassment and cost of proceedings.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement they admitted supply of 20 bags of ACC cement to the complainant, however, denied the supply of 25 bags of cement on 16.8.2006, as alleged by the complainant. They further took the plea that the cement supplied by them was fulfilling the requirements and parameters as per IS: 1489-1991 and the cement was of very good quality. They further stated that for getting the best results, a proper mixing of cement, sand and water of good quality and proper quantity besides the place of mixing are to be taken into consideration and a person who does not take care of the above said requirements, can have the bad results. The opposite parties in the month of July, 2006 supplied 1688 Mts i.e. 37760 bags of ACC cement in Yamuna Nagar area and further supplied 1992 Mts i.e. 39840 bags in the month of August, 2006 but no complaint was received from any consumer. The opposite party No. 1 had received the consignment of 87 mts. i.e. 1740 bags in the month of July, 2006 and 37.5 mts. 750 bags in the month of August, 2006 and sold the same to various customers but no complaint was received from any purchaser except the complainant. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 9,495 price of the cement along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 3.8.2006 till its realization and to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss as well as cost of the proceedings.
5. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
7. While assailing the impugned order Mr. Naveen Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties has argued that in order to keep the best quality and best strength, the appellant No. 1 The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. is keeping the strict visual during the manufacturing of the cements, as has been detailed in the written statement. In support of his arguments Mr. Chaudhary has referred to Annexure A-9
