ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is complainant’s appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.3.2003 passed by District Forum, Haridwar, where the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed. 2. It is said that the complainant purchased 53 bags of cement for house construction. But the cement was below standard. It did not set. The complainant lodged the complaint and with the consent of the opposite party, three samples were taken. Two samples were given to the complainant and one was given to the opposite party. The complainant sent the sample to the Chemistry Department of Roorkee Engineering University for testing. He paid handsome amount in the testing. On testing, the cement was found to be not of the standard qualifications. Therefore, the complainant claimed compensation and cost of litigation. 3. In the case besides the agency from where the cement was purchased i.e. Bhatia Cement Company, A.C.C. Cement Company was also made a party. Both the complainants filed a separate written statement. However the opposite party No. 1 alleged that instead of 53 less bags were purchased. There was dispute of some price, therefore, to blackmail, a false complaint was filed. It was alleged that the complainant has purchased A.C.C. cement of PPC brand, whereas, it was chemically tested for OPC brand and the standard of both the cements are different. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The complainant has purchased the cement. He has not given in his complaint whether it was OPC brand or PPC brand. In the grounds of appeal also nothing has been said whether the complainant has purchased PPC brand or OPC brand. The learned Counsel for the Cement Company vehemently argued that the cement sold was Portland Puzolona Cement (PPC) and it was not Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and the standard of both the cements are different. The learned Forum has also held that testing should have been done taking the cement as PPC brand and not OPC brand, the complainant has not disputed that the cement was PPC brand. The learned Forum has also held that testing should have been done taking the cement as PPC brand and not OPC brand, the complainant has not disputed that the cement was PPC brand. When the testing has been made on different patterns of treating the standard of different brands, that cannot be said to be a proper and legal testing to justify the claim of the complainant that the cement sold was sub-standard. There is no other proof of the case. 6. We do not find only infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Forum. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is, hereby, dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed. ____