J.K. WHITE CEMENT WORKS Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR
LAWS(NCD)-2020-9-2
NCDRC
Decided on September 02,2020

J.K. White Cement Works Appellant
VERSUS
RAJENDER KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RUBI CHANDRA DUTTA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ANUP K.THAKUR,PRESIDING MEMBER, J. - (1.) This Revision Petition No. 1195 of 2018 filed by the petitioner/Opposite Party (OP hereafter) challenges the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('State Commission', for short) dated 19.02.2018 in FA 465/2017 vide which the appeal against the order dated 14.3.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar ('District Forum', for short) in Consumer CC 139/2015 was dismissed. In turn, the District Forum, had allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs. 15,000/- lump sum with 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint (21.4.2015) till payment, as also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. towards harassment and mental agony etc.
(2.) The brief facts are that on 02.04.2015, the respondent 1/complainant (complainant hereafter) purchased 20 bags of JK Wall Putty and 45 bags of JK Lakshmi P.O.P, on payment of Rs.15,190/- vide Bill No.8, from respondent 2/ opposite party 1-Shri Ram Paints and Sanitary store (OP-1 hereafter) for use in his house. OP 1 is the authorized dealer of JK White Cement Works, New Delhi and OP-2 is the manufacturer. Per the plaint, the complainant engaged 7 labourers for application of wall putty which was completed in 6 days, spending Rs.19,200/-. However, the wall putty was allegedly defective as it started falling from the walls. OP-1 also visited premises of the complainant and saw the putty falling upon touch. Aggrieved, a consumer complaint, CC 139/2015, was filed before the District Forum.
(3.) This was contested through written replies by OP-1 and OP-2. OP-1 took many objections such as the complaint was false, frivolous, vexatious; there was no cause of action; others who were sold the putty from the same batch did not have any complaints and that the purpose of filing the complaint was only to harass. OP-2 filed it's reply along the same lines as OP-1 but added that there was no report of an appropriate laboratory to support the complainant's allegation that there was a defect in the wall putty.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.