M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1270 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 30.09.2015 passed in C.C.No.120/2013 by District Commission, Dhar)

SHRIJI SPUN PIPE & CEMENT PRODUCT

INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDAV LINK ROAD,

DHAR THROUGH OWNER VITTHAL GARG                                                          … APPELLANT.

                       Versus

SMT. SMITA KARALE,

W/O SHRI SANDEEP KARALE,

R/O SUBHASH MARG, DHAR                                                                                … RESPONDENT.                                

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Nitin Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 04.11.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

                   This appeal by the opposite party/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.120/2013, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) has been partly allowed.

2.                The respondent had filed a complaint before the District Commission stating that she had purchased 200 RCC fencing poles of

-2-

height 2 meters on 29.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the appellant. It is alleged that the poles were of defective quality.  When they were installed, cracks appeared and the poles fell down. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the appellant, she approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The appellant resisted the complaint stating that the respondent’s allegations are baseless.  The poles were not defective, as alleged by the respondent. Superior quality products were used in their preparation and thus the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the respondent within a month, along with another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service, with Rs.1,000/- as costs. Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. 

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that they are a reputed firm which conducts business in the entire district.  The respondent’s allegations that the poles were of defective quality is without any basis.  The appellant had put forward photographs and CD in order to substantiate their submissions. The testing of the pole sample, was also done at the appellant’s request. A test report from GSITS Engineering College, Indore which is there on record confirms that the cement was present in the poles

-3-

in appropriate proportion. But the District Commission has relied on a test report, where sample was tested on respondent’s request.  The District Commission ought to have called for a third test report, when both the above mentioned reports were contradictory in nature. The District Commission has committed grave error in relying on the report placed by the respondent and therefore, the impugned order which is erroneous, deserves to be set-aside.

7.                The respondent has submitted written arguments in which it is submitted that the poles sold by the appellant were of inferior quality and therefore they fell at the time of installation.  Due to the inferior quality