STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 11.03.2019 Date of Final Hearing : 06.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023 First Appeal No. 76 / 2019

1. M/s Ultratech Cement Limited Through its Manager First Floor, Kailesh Sai Building, Azad Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Dehradun Road, Roorkee – 247667 Through its Authorised Signatory Sh. Vinay Sharma, Manager (F&C) S/o Late Prem Nath Sharma C/o Ultratech Cement Limited Regional Office 1^st Floor, Sirmour Plaza

119 Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 2. M/s Kisan Cement Store Through its Proprietor Sh. Sayeed Ahmed R/o Village Margubpur, Post Khas, District Haridwar

3. M/s Bhagwan Traders Through Proprietor Sh. Ajay Singhal R/o 133, B.T. Ganj, Roorkee, Haridwar (Through: Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Advocate)

…..Appellants VERSUS Sh. Riyazul Hasan S/o Aal Hussain R/o Village Margubpur, Post Khas, District Haridwar (Through: Ms. Gulnaz Banoo, Advocate)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 24 of 2015 styled as Sh. Riyazul Hasan Vs. M/s Kisan Cement Store and Others, wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant had purchased 150 cement bags @ 350/- per bag of M/s Ultratech Cement – opposite party No. 3 through opposite party No. 1 for construction of second floor of his residential house and paid Rs. 51,000/- to the opposite party No. 1. It was assured by the opposite party No. 1 at the time of purchase that the cement is of good quality and if the house is constructed with such good quality cement, it would be more stronger. The construction was made with good mixing and by the efficient mason, but after three days some cracks appeared in the flooring and walls, then a complaint was made to the opposite parties thereupon, the opposite parties sent its engineer Sh. Rehman for testing of the cement so purchased by the complainant, who took the sample of the said cement for checking in the lab, but neither the report nor any reply was given to the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties have done deficiency in service, thereby mental agony and financial loss have occurred to the complainant. Inspite of legal notice dated 24.12.2014 neither reply was given nor the complainant was compensated, therefore, a complaint was brought before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party No. 1 has alleged in its written statement that the complaint was moved concealing the true facts. The true facts of the case are as such that the opposite party No. 3 is the manufacturing company of the alleged cement whereas the answering opposite party is only a shop- keeper, who used to sell the cement of the opposite party No. 3 – Company. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party in providing the requisite service to the complainant. Whenever the defects in the cement quality were brought to his knowledge, the answering opposite party had fully cooperated with the complainant and gave immediate information to the manufacturing company through opposite party No. 2. The manufacturing company sent its representative on dated 02.12.2014 who came to the house of the complainant for testing the quality of the cement. The complainant has already used 140 cement bags out of 150 in construction and there was no defect in such construction whereas the defect in the wall and flooring of II^nd Floor has occurred only due to the negligence and not mixing the sand properly with the cement as per adequate ratio. Moreover, the complainant was seeking six additional cement bags as illegal demand which was refused by the opposite parties, theref