KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.848/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 10.10.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.108/2005 of CDRF, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. B.A. Krishnakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Shyam Padman)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This appeal is filed against an order dated 08.07.2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikkode (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) in O.P.No.108/2005.  The appellants herein are the opposite parties 2 and 3 before the District Forum.  The 1^st respondent herein is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 1^st opposite party before the District Forum.  As per the order appealed against the complaint of the 1^st respondent has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to pay to the 1^st respondent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs), together with Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) being the costs of the proceedings within a period of thirty days of receipt of the order, failing which the principal amount shall carry interest @8% per annum till payment.  According to the appellants, the judgement of the District Forum is wrong and is liable to be set aside. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, in accordance with their status before the District Forum.

          2.       According to the complainant, his father Sri. T.P. Abdullah had purchased three hundred bags of Ultra tech cement from the 1^st opposite party’s shop, manufactured by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The purchase was made on 13.11.2004 for an amount of Rs.42,600/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred).  The said cement was used for the concreting work on the 4^th floor of the complainant’s building.  The concreting was done observing perfectly the ratio of cement and other materials used.  All quality control measures were also adopted.  As the quantity of cement was not sufficient, an additional thirty bags of cement of another brand was used for concreting a small portion of the remaining floor.  Four bags of ultra tech cement were kept aside for plastering the roof.

          3.       But, on the next day morning it was found that in almost all the areas where ultra tech cement was used, cracks had developed.  Profuse leakage was also observed in that region.  At the same time, no cracks or defects were found in the areas concreted on the same day using the other brand cement.  Immediately, the matter was reported to the 1^st opposite party and the Technical Officer of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties inspected the site.  They were fully convinced of the defec