Beyond the Bag: When Cement Quality Fails, Who Pays?


16 December 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

A recent ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld the decisions of lower consumer courts in the matter of Bangur Cement New Delhi , affirming the liability of a cement manufacturer for supplying substandard cement that led to the collapse of a residential lintel. This case highlights the importance of product quality and consumer protection in the construction industry.

The dispute arose when a homeowner purchased 100 bags of Bangur cement in February 2013. After constructing a reinforced concrete cement (RCC) lintel and allowing for proper curing, the structure collapsed in April 2013, causing significant financial loss. The homeowner alleged that the collapse was due to the inferior quality of the cement.


 

 

Independent expert reports from Er. Jaswinder Singh Toor & Associates and Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College supported the homeowner's claims. These reports indicated that the cement's compressive strength and soundness were below industry standards, suggesting a direct link between the cement quality and the structural failure.

The cement manufacturer, however, denied any deficiency in service, arguing that the collapse was due to improper construction techniques, such as insufficient steel reinforcement. They also contested the validity of the complainant's expert reports, alleging manipulation and non-compliance with laboratory testing procedures under the Consumer Protection Act.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, initially ruled in favor of the homeowner, directing the cement manufacturer to compensate for the cost of the cement, labor, and materials, along with additional compensation for litigation expenses. This decision was subsequently upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab.

The NCDRC, in its recent ruling, dismissed the manufacturer's revision petition, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. The commission found no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the lower courts' orders.

The NCDRC underscored the credibility of the independent expert reports, which provided compelling evidence of the cement's substandard quality. The commission also rejected the manufacturer's claims of improper construction techniques, finding them unsubstantiated.

This ruling reaffirms the principle that manufacturers and suppliers are responsible for ensuring the quality of their products. It also highlights the importance of independent expert evaluations in consumer dispute resolution. The NCDRC's decision reinforces the consumer's right to seek redress for losses caused by defective products, particularly in critical sectors like construction.

The NCDRC referenced Supreme Court precedent (Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., and Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd.) to reinforce the limitations of their revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that they cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact from lower courts unless there is a clear error of law or jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the case serves as a reminder to both consumers and manufacturers about the importance of quality control and adherence to industry standards in the construction sector.


Section 13, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - 2019  

Section 21, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - 2019  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986