S ELHENCE Vs. RAGHOMAL NAHAR SINGH P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The complainant in Case No. 77/89 on the file of the District Forum, Dehradun is the revision petitioner.

(2.) On March 2, 1987 the complainant had placed an order with the Opposite Party No. 1 respondent - herein for the supply of 50 bags of "ordinary portland cement" and on payment of the cost demanded for the same he was issued a bill which specifically stated that what was sold thereunder to the complainant was "ordinary portland cement". The cement was delivered to him on the same day. The complainant used a substantial quantity of the said cement for the work of 'grouting' in a building which was being newly constructed by him. To his utter disappointment it was found that the cement used by him was not setting properly. That prompted him to get the balance quantity of the cement left with him examined. On such examination it was found that what was supplied to him by the Opposite Party No.1was not "ordinary portland cement" suitable for 'grouting' etc. in house construction but an inferior variety of cement called 'slag' cement. Though he immediately took up the matter with the Opposite Party No. 1, he did not get any favourable response from him. Hence a complaint was filed by him before the District Forum, Dehradun claiming compensation for the "defect" in the goods supplied to him and also for the inconvenience caused to him by reason of the supply of such inferior quality of cement. After hearing both sides, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the cement supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality and it was thus "defective". The District Forum awarded to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- besides Rs. 300/- by way of costs.

(3.) On the matter being taken up in appeal by the Opposite Party No. 1 - M/s. Ragho Mal Nahar Singh (P) Ltd., Dehradun before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum in its finding that the cement supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality and hence it suffered from a 'defect'. But the State Commission took the view that since the transaction of sale which gave rise to the cause of action took place on March 2, 1987, prior to the date of coming into force of Chapter III of the Consumer Protection Act namely, July 1, 1987, the complainant was not entitled to seek any relief before the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act. For reaching this conclusion the State Commission has given the following reasoning: "Chapter III of Consumer Protection Act has been enforced in the State of Uttar Pradesh (along with other States) from 1-7-1987. Therefore this Act takes effect from 1.7.1987 and matters prior to this date on account of not being covered do not fall under jurisdiction of the District Forum/State Commission". On this technical view the State Commission allowed the appeal of the 1st respondent herein, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Hence this revision petition by the complainant