A.R.CHADHA And CO vs H.K.AHUJA

THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant against the order of the District Forum dated 20.11.90.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant purchased 25 drums of cement from the defendant on 10th March, 1990. Those were required for laying roof in the house which was being constructed by him, on 25th March, 1990. The cement was delivered by the defendant on 18th March, 1990. It is alleged by the complainant that when the drums were opened some of the drums were half empty. The complainant, it is pleaded, had purchased 5-6 drums in excess of his requirement to meet any contingency. The roof measuring about 1400 square feet had been laid by the said cement In the circumstances it is prayed by the complainant that he suffered a loss of Rs. 1,300/-.

The complaint was resisted by the defendant who controverted the allegations of the complainant

THE Forum accepted the complaint and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1,300/- to the complainant. THE defendant has come up in appeal to this Commission. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that ACC Ltd. is the manufacturer of the cement and it was a necessary party to the complaint. He submits that the complaint should not have been decided in its absence.

WE have duly considered the argument but do not find any substance therein. The complainant purchased the cement from the defendant and it was the duty of the defendant to give the proper quantity of the cement to the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the complainant. Consequently, the manufacturer is not a necessary party to the present proceedings. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant should not have opened the remaining drums when he discovered that one of them was half empty. We do not agree with this submission of the learned Counsel as well. The laying of the roof is the technical work and is a continuous process. It has to be completed on the same day on which it is started. It was not possible for the complainant after starting the work to stop the same till further cement would have become available to him. It is further relevant to point-out that 25th March, 1990 was Sunday and most of the markets remain closed on Sundays. Therefore, it was not possible for him to purchase cement from the market. It is for this reason that he had purchased more cement than the required quantity so that the job could be completed on that day. The complainant could not stop the laying of the roof when he found one of the drums half empty. We, therefore, reject this submission also. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was not enough proof on the file to assess the quantity of the cement which was short, and that the compensation granted by the Forum was excessive. We do not find substance in this submission also. The complainant filed the affidavits of two witnesses namely Sh. Manage Ram and Sh. Ashok Kumar. Both the witnesses live near the plot on which the house was being constructed. Both of them have deposed that they were present at the time of laying of the roof and they found some of the drums half empty. There are no grounds to disbelieve their affidavits. Consequently, we do not find that any excessive amount was given to the complainant by the District Forum.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed.