STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 03.05.2024 Date of Final Hearing: 24.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 SC/5/A/92/2023 ACC Limited Gagal Cement Works Registered Office – Cement House

121, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020 through its Chairman / Manager / Authorised Signatory (Through: Sh. Sunil Rawat, Advocate)

…… Appellant Versus

1. Sh. Chander Bhanu S/o late Kushambari Lal R/o 140/141, Suman Nagar, Old No. 56 Dharampur, Dehradun (Through: Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate via Video Conferencing)

2. Panwar Sanitary & Hardware Store Haridwar Bypass Road, Mothrowala Crossing Ajabpur Khurd, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Through: None)

…… Respondents Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 136 of 2019, styled as Sh. Chander Bhanu Vs. Panwar Sanitary & Hardware Store and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant & respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) were jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the cement amounting to Rs. 12,300/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant, besides to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of grouting; Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days’ from the date of impugned judgment and order, failing which the respondent No. 1 / complainant was also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above sums from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. It was also observed by the District Commission that since the appellant has supplied the adulterated cement to respondent No. 2, hence the entire liability shall be that of the appellant, however, in case the decretal amount is paid by respondent No. 2, it shall have a right to recover the same from the appellant.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the construction work of the house of respondent No. 1 / complainant was in progress, for which on 25.12.2017, he had purchased cement from respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 for roof grouting. The complainant asked respondent No. 2 to supply 40 bags of cement, upon which, the respondent No. 2 asked the complainant that if he is purchasing cement for roof grouting, then ACC Gold 50 kg. cement would be best for grouting. Relying upon the version of respondent No. 2, the complainant purchased 10 bags of ACC cement and 30 bags of ACC Gold 50 Kg. cement on 25.12.2017 for sum of Rs. 15,900/-. The cement so purchased was used for grouting, but only after 15-17 days’, the cement started losing grip, whereupon the complainant met respondent No. 2, who told that every cement loses some grip and only upper crust will lose, but the grip will remain firm. After 2-3 months’, the result of cement became bad and after first rain, the cement lost its grip and crushed stone & cement became separated. The complainant again lodged complaint with respondent No. 2, who in turn, conveyed information to the appellant. Thereafter, some officials / employees of the appellant visited the complainant’s house for inspecting the roof grouting and they found the lose cement and took photographs and said that they will sent it to laboratory for checking and in case the cement bags are found adulterated or of inferior quality, new cement bags would be provided to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited respondent No. 2 on several occasions, but to no avail. By selling adulterated cement bags, the appellant & respondent No. 2 have caused loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant also sent a legal notice through his counsel to the appel