1.      This Revision Petition has been filed under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (‘State Commission’) order dated 18.04.2017 in FA No.1418/ 2014. In this the Appeal by the Petitioners/ OPs was dismissed, affirming the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (“District Forum”) Order dated 21.08.2014 in CC No. 627 of 2013.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that she purchased 100 bags of Bangur cement on 18.02.2013, raised the RCC lintel using the cement and removed the steel shuttering on 15.04.2013, after proper curing. The lintel collapsed due to the inferior quality of the cement, causing a loss of approximately ₹2,50,000/-. Er. Jaswinder Singh Toor and Associates confirmed the damages at ₹2,50,000/-. Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College found the compressive strength and soundness of the cement below the required standards. Despite multiple assurances from the opposite parties' representatives, no compensation was provided.  Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

4.      In the written version filed before the District Forum, OPs denied the claims and denied allegations of deficiency in service, claiming that the cement was of good quality and met industry standards. They averred that the collapse was due to improper construction techniques, including insufficient steel reinforcement and lack of cranking in the steel bars. They contested the validity of the complainant's reports, asserting they were manipulated and non-compliant with Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act regarding laboratory testing procedures.

5.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.08.2014, allowed the complaint with the following observations:

“11. Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and Ops are directed to make the payment of 100 bags of cement i.e. Rs.29,000/- along with material and labour, which is assessed to be Rs.40,000/-.  Further Ops are directed to Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses as compositely assessed to the complainant.  Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs.  File be consigned to record room”

6.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners/OPs filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 18.04.2017 dismissed the Appeal with the following observations:

“12. Ex.C-2 is the receipt for purchase of the cement on the record and there is no dispute that the lintel has fallen down. Even Baljeet Singh, Junior Technical Officer of the opposite parties visited the site and found that the damage was caused. Even Jaswinder Singh Toor & Asso. examined the site and submitted his report dated 06.05.2013 Ex.C-10, in which he has assessed the loss at ₹2,50,000/-. The loss caused to the complainant by falling down of lintel due to sub-standard quality of the cement supplied by the opposite parties is also very much apparent from the photographs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. The District Forum has discarded the major portion of the loss assessed on the ground that there are no details mentioned nor any particulars such as Municipal Corporation plan  was submitted. Be that as it may, the area of the plot itself was of 133 sq. yds.  It cannot be presumed that any part is left for construction for such a  small area. Be that as it may, the fact remains that a categorical finding has been recorded by the District Forum that the complainant has purchased 100 bags of cement, worth ₹29,000/-, along with material and labour, which is assessed at ₹40,000/- and has awarded the said amount. From the evidence produced on the record, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling the sub-standard quality of cement to the complainant has been clearly established and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

13. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned order is upheld.

14. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.12,000/-, vide receipt dated 25.11.2014, in compliance of the order dated 10.11.2014. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/ demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.”

7.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/OPs reiterated the grounds taken in the Revision Petition and denied the allegations of deficiency in service, claiming that the cement was of good quality and met industry standards. He argued that the collapse was due to improper construction techniques, including insufficient steel reinforcement and lack of cranking in the steel bars. He further contested the validity of the Complainant's reports, asserting they were manipulated and non-compliant with Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act regarding laboratory testing procedures. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.  He relied upon the following judgments:

A. Meera Sahni vs. Lt Governor of Delhi & Ors., MANU/SC/7878/2008;

B. M/s. Mohmd Yaqoob Shah v. Ghulam Rasool Wani, AIR 2005 Jammu and Kashmir 53;

C. Hotel Nandadeep vs. Ramachandra Baburao Kokil & Ors., II (1994) CPJ 34 (NC);

D. Satya Devi vs Rakesh Kr Sawhney & Ors., III (1999) CPJ 328;

E. Jai Prakash Verma vs. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. & Anr., RP No.3665 of 2012, decided on 01.02.2013 by the NCDRC;

F. Shri Ali Mohammed vs. Swastic Cement Suppliers & Anr., RP No.4454 of 2010, decided on 20.07.2012 by the NCDRC;

G. ACC Limited vs. Harinder Kaur & Anr., FA No.97 of 2015, decided on 09.03.2016 by the State Commission, Punjab;

H. ACC Ltd. & Anr. vs. Gurmukh & Anr., FA No.1053 of 2013, decided on 01.06.2016 by the State Commission, Punjab;

I. SM Aggarwal v. M/s Thar Cement Ltd, CC Nos.51 and 71 of 1993 decided on 13.05.1997 by State Commission, Haryana;

J. Rajinder Singh vs. Varinder, II (1994) CPJ 127;

K. Ambuja Cement Ltd. vs. Jai Pal & Ors., FA No.3150 of 2007, decided on 31.03.2011 by the State Commission, Haryana.

8.      The learned Amicus Curiae for the Respondent/Complainant argued in support of the orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission. She sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs.

9.      The Respondent No.2/OP-1 Hare Krishna Cement Store was deleted from the array of the parties at the Petitioners risk without prejudice to other respondents vide order dated 24.04.2023.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated records, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11.    In the present case, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College reports provide credible evidence that the compressive strength and soundness of the cement were below industry standards. These findings support her assertion of inferior quality cement, which likely contributed to the structural collapse. The OPs, as manufacturers/ suppliers, are expected to ensure/ inform the quality of their product. The collapse occurred despite proper curing and adherence to construction norms, as stated by the complainant and verified by independent engineers. The claim of improper construction techniques is unsubstantiated and contradicted by the complainant's expert reports. The objection under Section 13 of the Act regarding laboratory testing is untenable, as the report is from an independent agency and the same is detailed and credible.

12.    The District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced. The State Commission after due consideration of the case, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because as the report is from an independent agency and the same is detailed and credible.

13.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

14.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

15.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

16.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

17.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.