BHOPAL STEELS Vs. GOVINDLAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two sets of revision petitions in which challenge is to the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P., Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) dated 1.8.2006. Vide the said order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of OP No. 1, Lafarge India Limited, manufacturer of cement and dismissed the Appeal of OP No. 3, Bare Khan Traders. The present revisionist wholesale dealer Bhopal Steels/OP-2, however, did not participate in the proceedings before both the consumer Fora below and was proceeded ex parte.

(2.) Petitioner in RP No. 3334, OP No. 3, Bare Khan Traders is aggrieved against the order of the State Commission because his appeal against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint for refund of Rs. 3,09,000 with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000 with Rs. 5,000 as cost holding all the three jointly and severally responsible was dismissed. Absentee before the lower Fora OP-2, Bhopal Steel has filed RP Nos. 3431-32, because the State Commission in its order inter alia has absolved OP No. 1, Lafarge India, the manufacturer leaving him and retailer OP-3, Bare Khan to share the burden. Brief facts:

(3.) The dispute in this case relates to supply of sub-standard cement.