This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sobhraj Cold Storage & Ice Factory against the order dated 29.5.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeals Nos.1218/2017 & 1173/2017.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2008 the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur First (in short ‘the District Forum’) against the petitioner regarding deficiency in services.  In the year 2008 the petitioner filed reply before the District Forum and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  On 18.9.2017, the District Forum allowed the complaint against the petitioner and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.5,52,000/- for the loss of the potato which were found damaged when taken out and also awarded an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards compensation and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Both parties preferred appeals against the order of the District Forum.  FA No.1218 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner and FA No.1173 of 2017 was filed by the complainant.  The State Commission dismissed both the appeals vide its order dated 29/05/2018.

3.      Hence this revision.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.  Learned counsel stated that both the fora below have passed orders, which are contrary to the admitted facts in the case.  It was stated that when the potatoes were kept in the godown they were brought wet due to rains.  A remark on the back of the receipt was mentioned in this regard.  About 1000 bags were taken out in between by the complainant and were sold.  However, when finally the remaining bags were taken out on 4.11.2008, they had sprouted and the complainant filed complaint No.991 of 2008.  Both the fora below have allowed the complaint and have granted compensation on the total amount of potatoes, which is not justified.  It was further stated that the rates of the potatoes allowed by the fora below is also not justified.

5.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.  Though the petitioner has alleged that the potatoes were brought wet due to rains and the remark was made on the back of the receipt issued, however, this receipt has not been filed by the petitioner for reasons best known to the petitioner. All the allegations made by the petitioner relate to the facts of the case and the District Forum as well as State Commission have given concurrent finding on these facts, therefore, this Commission cannot reassess the facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:

“23.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

6.      No legal issue has been raised in the revision petition and therefore, no interference is required in the instant revision petition. 

7.      On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.  Consequently, revision petition No.2076 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.