1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.07.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh in first appeal No.657/2022 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/opposite party was dismissed. 3. The complainant/respondent stored 207 sacks of potatoes in the cold store of the petitioner on 06.03.2008, which the complainant was to take back on 31.10.2008. When the complainant went to take back the potatoes, the opposite party showed him the lot of other potatoes, which the complainant refused to accept. The opposite party asked the complainant to come back after four days. After four days also the opposite party showed him other potatoes for which the complainant objected and demanded his potatoes whereupon the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant and refused to give the potatoes to the complainant. The opposite party had sold the complainant’s potato seed sacks, due to which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,81,175/-. The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.10.2008 to the opposite party but in vain, therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,81,175/- (Rs.575/- per bag for 489 bags) with 9% interest p.a. The opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, vide order dated 04.06.2022. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2022, the opposite party has filed the instant appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Fora below failed to appreciate that the complainant concealed the material facts to gain undue benefit from the opposite party. The appellant sold the potatoes after notice to the complainant. The Fora below failed to appreciate that in the receipt issued by the cold storage it was nowhere mentioned that delivery of potato bags was to be taken on 31.10.2008. 5. It is admitted by the opposite party before the District Forum that they sold the potatoes after notice dated 15.07.2008 to the complainant. The opposite party failed to produce the proof of service of notice dated 15.07.2008 either before the District Forum, State Commission or this Commission. Selling of potatoes of the complainant without notice is unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/opposite party. Both the Fora below have returned concurrent findings in this respect. Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 held that the National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. The petitioner failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
