This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.05.2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in appeal no. 709 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Birla Cement Works (respondent no. 2 in this revision petition) and set aside the order dated 17.03.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara (in short, he District Forum and also dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner/complainant sought free legal assistance on the ground that he was unable to pursue this case because of financial constraints. On consideration of his request, Ms. Sakshi Gupta was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Commission with the case of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner/complainant had alleged in his complaint before the District Forum that he had purchased cement bags manufactured by respondent no. 2 and sold by respondent no. 1 as a dealer of the former for construction of water storage tank on his agricultural field. The cement was purchased respondent no. 1 during 23.10.2001 to 02.11.2001 for a total cost of Rs.4,015. He entrusted the construction of the tank to experienced mason and other workmen who ensured the quality of construction using the prescribed proportion of cement, sand and water. Still, when the tank was filed with water after its construction, its walls collapsed. Alleging poor quality of cement for this collapse of the water storage tank, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- on various counts, in addition to costs of the proceedings. 4. The complaint was contested by both the respondents. Respondent no. 1 pleaded that Chetak brand cement, manufactured by respondent no. 2 and packed in original bags, was sold to petitioner/complainant for which the latter paid only a part of the price in cash and that the petitioner/complainant did not produce any reliable evidence in support of his contention that the cement was of inferior quality. The quality of the cement was as manufactured by the manufacturer and hence, if the allegation was about the quality of cement, the dealer (respondent no. 1) could not be held responsible. Likewise, in its written version, the respondent no. 2 contented that the cement manufactured by it was of high quality and certified by the ISI (now known as the Bureau of Indian Standards - BIS). It also contended that the complainant had not produced any acceptable evidence in support of his allegation that the cement bought by him from respondent no. 1 was of inferior quality which alone was responsible for the alleged collapse of the water storage tank. Moreover, the complainant had also not filed any evidence in support of the quantum of loss alleged to have been suffered by him for claiming compensation, etc. 5. The District Forum, relying mainly on the affidavits of three workmen, namely; Maqbool, Bheru Lal and Jagdish Teli produced by the complainant, held that the water storage tank constructed by the petitioner/complainant collapsed on account of inferior quality of the cement bought from the dealer and manufactured by respondent no. 2 and awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- towards the cost of 29 bags of defective cement, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs, to be paid jointly and severally by both the respondents. 6. In appeal, respondent no. 2 reiterated the arguments advanced before the District Forum. In addition, it was argued on behalf of the appellant as well as the dealer that the evidence affidavit of the workmen could not be relied upon because they were unskilled workers and the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, he Act had not been followed by seeking the opinion of an expert/laboratory on the quality of the cement. The State Commission accepted the contentions of the appellant (Birla Cement Works) and the dealer and set aside the order of the District Forum, as mentioned above. 7. We have heard Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Amicus Curiae, the proprietor of respondent no.1 and Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 8(i) In his written submission, respondent no. 1 has once again stated that he sold the cement to the petitioner/complainant in bags used by the manufacturer to pack the cement and there was no question of the cement being of inferior quality. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also contended that the quality of cement was in conformity with the standards laid down in this behalf and, in any case, to bring home the allegation of inferior quality of the cement bought by him, the petitioner/complainant had to follow the provisions of section 13(1)(c) which was not done in this case. (ii) Ms. Gupta, on the other hand, submitted that a farmer in a village could not be expected to engage technically qualified engineer and workmen for the construction of a simple water storage tank and, therefore, the affidavit evidence of Maqbool, Bheru Lal and Jagdish Teli could not be disregarded. She urged that the amount awarded by the District Forum being small, respondent no. 2 ought to consider paying it, without prejudice to its contention. This suggestion was, however, strongly opposed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 who stated that his client instructions were not to consider any suggestion for settlement. 9. It is quite clear from the records of the case that the petitioner/complainant was not able to satisfactorily establish his allegation of inferior quality of the cement manufactured by respondent no. 2 and purchased by him from the local dealer (respondent no. 1). Further, the District Forum relied almost entirely on the evidence of the three workmen who were clearly interested parties and not technically competent to state anything definitive about the quality of the cement used in construction of the storage tank. 10. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21(b) of the Act because we do not find any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity in that order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.