A Deal That Fell Through

A person bought cement from a dealer in Delhi and used it to lay a roof. Fifteen days later, a portion of it fell. The architect and the contractor who were connected with the construction were of the view that the roof fell because the cement was sub-standard and spurious.

The person compained to the police the same day and also contacted the dealer who agreed to pay Rs 70,000 as compensation and who paid Rs 15,000 in cash as part payment. The consumer also reported the matter to the cement manufacturer, who made an enquiry and replied that the cement was indeed adulterated and spurious and had not been manufactured by them.

The complaint: But when the consumer failed to receive the full amount promised by the dealer, he complained to the Delhi District Forum-II claiming compensation of Rs 2,02,399. Later, the sum was sought to be raised to Rs 2,29,455. The manufacturer was also made a party to the complaint.

The manufacturer pleaded that there was no allegation against them in the complaint. They said that as soon as the case came to their notice they advertised in a leading newspaper urging purchases only from their authorised dealers and had lodged a report with the police.

After hearing the parties, the DDF held that the cement in question was spurious and as it had been sold by the dealer, the dealer was liable to pay the compensation. As for the amount of compensation, the DDF held that a total compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh, including costs, would be just. The dealer was directed to pay the amount with interest at 18 per cent per annum within one month or attract section 27 of CPA which pertains to fine and imprisonment.

Dealers appeal: The dealer appealed to the Delhi State Commission (DSC). He said the cement component was only to the extent of Rs 18,475 and the architect had said in a certificate on June 7, 1993, which was on the district forums record, that Rs 77,939 had been incurred in constructing the building. It was not fair to be asked to pay a compensation which exceeded what had been certified by the consumers architect.

The DSC observed that the building had not yet been built and since the time the construction already made was found to be useless, there had been an unprecedented escalation. It noted that the DDF had appointed a local commissioner to inspect the premises who reported that the construction had to be pulled down because of the sub-standard cement.

The DSC therefore felt that the award by the DFF had been just and reasonable, and it dismissed the appeal with costs assessed at Rs 250.