The matter arises out of purchase of 275 bags of cement by the Complainant worth Rs.67100/- in 2009. It was manufactured by OP-2 and sold by OP-1. The complaint before the District Forum was that due to the bad quality of cement plaster had started pealing and lintel had started chipping within four months of construction of the house. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing OP-1 to pay compensation of Rs.1.25 lakhs and OP-2, the manufacturer of the cement to pay Rs.3.75 lakhs.
2. In the appeal filed by the OPs, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the OPs holding that the onus was primarily on the Complainant to prove that the material sold to him was of sub-standard quality. The State Commission also observed in this behalf that:-
“The plea of the complainant was that he was sold sub standard 275 bags by OP NO.1. The plea of OP was that the cement was of good quality and the complainant has not complied the provisions of 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act. It is admitted case of the complainant that he had not got tested cement from the laboratory as required under the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also not the case of the complainant that he ever moved any application before the concerned authorities for getting the cement of same batch number tested from any laboratory. There was no evidence in the shape of report from appropriate laboratory regarding cement to be sub standard. The procedure 13(1)(c) was not adopted.”
3. We have carefully considered the records submitted by the revision petitioner and heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate on his behalf. Learned counsel was asked, with reference to the above mentioned observation of the State Commission, as to why did the Complainant not get the material tested as per the requirement of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His reply was that this provision is not applicable to the present case as the cost of testing was over Rs. 1 lakh. This is an argument, which is neither sustainable under the law nor was it even a part of the pleadings before the District Forum. We therefore reject it.
4. The revision petitioner has sought to rely upon the decision of this Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Guruswamy and Anr., decided on 3.08.2001. The case cited by the petitioner had arisen in the context of the practice of farmers in sowing the entire seed. Again, similar view was taken by this Commission in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. P.V. Krishna Reddy and Others, CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC). It was held that it was not necessary for agriculturist to send a sample of the seed for laboratory analysis/tests as an agriculturist is not expected to conserve a portion of the seed for such eventuality. Facts in the present case are very different. Therefore, we do not think the petitioner can draw any support from it.
5. We also reject the contention of the petitioner that the onus to prove the quality of cement lay at the door of the OPs. In our view, the State Commission has rightly held that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner/Complainant and that he has failed to discharge it.
6. We therefore, find no substance in this revision petition. The same is dismissed for want of merit. No order as to costs. | 
