JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) The complainant purchased 405 bags of cement from M/s Manoj Cement House, Jind for construction of his house. The case of the complainant is that the said cement was used as per technical specifications but the plaster started falling soon thereafter. Suspecting that the cement was not of the required strength a sample of the cement was got tested by him from Haryana PWD (B&R) Research Laboratory, Hissar. Vide its report dated 12.01.1998 it was reported that the strength of the cement was not as prescribed by Punjab PWD. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the seller as the sole opposite party. 2. The seller filed a written version stating therein that the cement had been purchased by him from M/s Bharat Cement Distributors which was an authorized distributor of ACC Cement and Shree Cement. It was also stated that the cement sold by him was manufactured by ACC Company and he had sold sealed bags of ACC Cement after purchasing the same from the distributor M/s Bharat Cement Distributors. Thereafter the distributor Bharat Cement Distributors and the manufacturer ACC Cement were impleaded as the parties to the consumer complaint. They file their respective written version contesting the complaint and denied that the cement was of low strength. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 04.08.2005 directed the distributor and the manufacturer of the cement to pay Rs. 2,82,000/- to the complainant along-with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 08.10.2003 and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum both ACC Cement Ltd. and Bharat Cement Distributors approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 22.02.2012 the State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- while maintaining rest of the order. Being still dissatisfied both the manufacturer ACC Cement Ltd. and the distributor Bharat Cement Distributors are before this Commission by way of these revision petitions. 5. I have heard the learned counsel of ACC Cement, the manufacturer of the cement as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. No one has appeared for M/s Bharat Cement Distributors but the learned counsel for the complainant submits that he would be press for any compensation from Bharat Cement Distributors if the compensation awarded against the manufacturer M/s ACC Cement is upheld by this Commission. 6. The primary submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner ACC Cement Ltd. are that: (1) there is no evidence that the cement sold to the complainant was of ACC make; (2) the mortar was about 4 and half years old at the time it was analysed by Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research and (3) the cement was as per the standards prescribed by BIS. 7. As far as the brand of the cement sold to the complainant is concerned the written version filed by M/s Manoj Cement clearly shows that he had purchased the cement from M/s Bharat Cement Distributors, which was sold to the complainant in sealed bags. This was not the case either of the distributor Bharat Cement Distributors or of manufacturer ACC Cement Ltd. before the District Forum that the cement of some other brand was sold by M/s Manoj Cement to the complainant. No such averment is found in the written version of either of them. Therefore, I have absolutely no hesitation in confirming the findings that ACC cement was sold to the complainant in sealed bags. 8. As far as the quality of the cement is concerned the report of the PWD Haryana clearly shows that as per the classification of PWD Haryana the strength should have been 123 Kg./Cm2 whereas it was found to be 100/105 Kg./Cm2. Therefore, as per the report of the government laboratory, which I see no reason to disbelieve, the cement was of low strength as compared to the strength prescribed by PWD Haryana. 9. The District Forum had sent the sample of the mortar to Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research. The said Institute examined the sample very late, the sample having been received on 18.10.2002. The submission of the learned counsel for the manufacturer is that after such a time gap it is not possible to analyze the strength of the cement on the basis of the sample of the mortar. In this regard the State Commission has relied upon the cross-examination of an expert from Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research. But even if I exclude the report of Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research altogether from consideration, the report of the laboratory of PWD Haryana by itself is sufficient to prove that the strength of the cement sold to the complainant was not of the prescribed standards. That report by itself is sufficient to prove that ACC cement which M/s Manoj Cement sold to the complainant in sealed bags did not have the strength prescribed by Haryana PWD. In a revision petition this Commission will not be justified in interfering with a finding of fact returned by the Fora below, unless the same is shown to be perverse in the sense unless it is shown such a finding could not have been returned by any reasonable person acting on the basis of material available to him. In my opinion, the Fora below were justified in returning the findings in favour of the complainant on the basis of the unrebutted report of the laboratory of PWD Haryana alone. Therefore, the said findings cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Commission in merits of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove the revision petition bearing No. 2772/2012 filed by ACC Ltd. is hereby dismissed. As far as the revision petition bearing No. 2324/2012 filed by M/s Bharat Cement Distributors is concerned, the impugned order, to the extent it is directed against M/s Bharat Cement Distributors is set aside, meaning thereby that the complainant will be entitled to the compensation awarded by the Fora below only from the manufacturer of the cement i.e. M/s ACC Cement Ltd. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of. | 
