BAGH CEMENT LTD Vs. SURENDRANATH TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 3.3.2005 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal against the order dated 24.11.2003 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to pay total amount of Rs. 1,23,800 with interest @ 9% pa. from 6.2.2001 to the respondent.

(2.) Respondent/complainant had purchased 200 bags of 43 grade ordinary Portland cement manufactured and marketed by the petitioner/opposite party company on 3.2.2001 and out of that 70 bags of cement were returned by the respondent unused to the petitioner. Respondent alleged that in the house constructed on plot No. 83, Ashish Nagar, Indore he used the said cement on internal plastering, sanitary fittings, stairs and masonry work of parapet walls of roof of the house. The plaster had peeled off and parapet walls and other masonry work also developed cracks. Plastering and other masonry work was redone after incurring expenditure of Rs. 90,000. It was stated that cement supplied was of sub-standard quality. Respondent claimed refund of purchase money of Rs. 23,800 and compensation of Rs. 2 lakh from the petitioner by filing complaint which was contested by the petitioner. Petitioner did not deny purchase of 200 cement bags and return of 70 bags as unused by the respondent. However, it was alleged that the respondent for construction of house had purchased cement from other agencies also and mixture used for plastering was not of proper proportion. It was denied that the cement purchased from the petitioner was of sub-standard quality as alleged.

(3.) As may be seen from the orders passed by Fora below the respondent had filed affidavits of Mahesh Survyavanshi, Contractor, certificate from Manish Saxena, Engineer, photographs and two reports dated 3.3.2001 and 12.4.2003 of G.S. Institute of Technology and Science, Indore. Local Commissioner was also appointed by the District Forum to lift samples from the disputed sites of the house which were sent to the said institute for testing. As against this, the petitioner had filed affidavits of Manohar Dev, Director and that of Sameer Nayar, Production Manager of the company. Having scrutinised the said evidence let by the parties, the District Forum returned the finding that the cement purchased by the respondent from petitioner was of sub-standard quality and the respondent had to spend amount of Rs. 90,000 on plastering and re-doing the other works. Order of refund of price money of Rs. 23,800 and Rs. 1,00,000 by way of compensation was, therefore, passed by the District Forum. In appeal by the petitioner, order of District Forum was maintained affirming the said finding returned by the District Forum. Having heard Mr. S.D. Sharma for petitioner who has relied upon the said two affidavits filed on behalf of petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding returned by both the Fora below in regard to cement purchased being of sub-standard quality and the respondent having incurred the said money on plastering etc. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.