IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Power of review - National Commission can exercise power of review limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.
(2) Findings - Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This review petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 300 of 2015 and Appeal No. 130 of 2015 which were disposed of by way of a common order dated 02.11.2015 setting aside the order of the District Forum, Hisar (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 08.01.2015 in Complaint No.407 of 2011.

2. The revision petitioner/complainant has alleged that he was sold substandard cement by the respondent for which compensation is sought. It is averred that he had purchased 100 bags of cement manufactured by respondent no. 2 from respondent no. 1 who is a dealer for Shree Cement Ltd. for the flooring of his house. He engaged a local mason and undertook the work with proportionate mixing which was left to cure for 15 to 20 days. However, the cement did not set properly and was attributed by the mason to the poor quality of the cement. As there was no redress provided by the respondents, the petitioner approached the District Forum, Hisar by way of Consumer Complaint No. 4017 of 2011 which allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs 1,20,000/- with interest @ 9%, Rs 10,000/- for mental agony and litigation costs of Rs 1100/-. Both parties approached the State Commission against this order, seeking enhancement of compensation and for setting aside the order respectively. By way of a common order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioner herein for enhancement and allowed the respondent’s appeal to set the order of the District Forum aside. This order is impugned before this Commission in the present revision petition.

3. The order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 300 of 2015 and Appeal No. 130 of 2015 dated 02.11.2015 reads as below:—

“6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, in their respective appeals and have ourselves gone through the pleadings and the documentary evidence produced by the parties. It is evident and squarely proved on record that the complainant did not get the sample of the flooring tested from any lab., in order to substantiate that the cement used was of a poor quality. Further, apart from the evidence of the mason, who no doubt may be possessing more than 15 years of experience of laying the floor mill remains an unqualified person, the complainant did not produce any other trained or qualified engineer or mason to prove his claim. Since, he had approached the learned District Forum with the allegation that the cement was sub-standard and poor in quality; the burden of proof lay on him to have the sample analysed from the lab. He has completely failed in discharging his burden and proving his case. Moreover, the complainant also has not rebutted the assertion of the OPs that for laying sq ft flooring 175 bags of cement were required, whereas 100 bags were actually used by the complainant. In addition, the complainant has not rebutted the averments of the OPs that neither the curing of the floor was proper nor the mixture of the material applied by the mason Lili Ram was in order.

7. In view of this overwhelming evidence produced by the OPs, the order of the District Forum does not stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Appeal no. 130 of 2015 of the Appellant – M/s Krishan Sales Corporation, Hissar is allowed, appeal no.300 of 2015 filed by Ranjeet Singh, complainant for the modifications of the order stands dismissed and the impugned order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the learned District Forum, Hissar is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint of Ranjeet Singh, complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Amount, if any, already deposited by the appellant – OP-1 shall be refunded to OP-1.

8. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing no.130 of 2