In this revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986, order dated 23.9.2004 passed  by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar, Patna (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘State Commission’) in appeal No.473./1998 affirming the order of District Forum is under challenge.

Brief facts ----

Respondent/complainant availed the services of the petitioner/OP, the cold storage for the preservation of their potato stock.  While the complainant alleged that 798 bags of seed potato were stored in the cold storage, the petitioner/OP states that in fact 1013 bags were stored, out of which 613 bags were taken delivery of by the complainant on various dates.  According to the petitioner/OP, the dispute pertains to the remaining 400 bags.  There are claims and counter claims by both sides with regard to the actual number of bags stored and taken out.  The District Forum while disposing of complaint No.802/97 vide its order dated 25.6.1998 held that the figure of 798 bags was the correct figure for which the complainant was entitled to be compensated.  It, however, justified the value @ Rs.150/- per bag against the claim of Rs.265/- per bag on the ground of there being a bumper crop of potatoes that season and assessed the total value at Rs.1,18,900/-. The District Forum also allowed rent @ Rs.65/- per bag to the petitioner/OP and ordered a final payment of Rs.87,030/- (Rs.1,18,900-Rs.51,870/-) to the complainant. It also awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and a cost of Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses.

Dissatisfied with the order passed by District Forum, the petitioner/OP filed an appeal before the State Commission, which as stated earlier dismissed the appeal with a slight modification of the rate of interest to be @ 9% as against 12% ordered by the District Forum.

Aggrieved with the order of the State Commission that the petitioner/OP has filed this revision petition before us.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP has contended that in so far as the number of bags is concerned, as against the claim of the complainant that only 798 bags were stored, as per their log book, the complainant has stored 1013 bags on five different dates.  However, the complainant and their partner have subsequently taken delivery of the entire potato stock except 400 bags which they refused to take back as the stock was damaged.  The potatoes had sprouted making the stock un-fit for sale.  The counsel has repeatedly referred to the report of the surveyor dated 22.7.1998 (at page 45 of the paper book) and has strenuously argued that since Shri Rajendra Prasad one of the partner of the complainant was present at the time of inspection of the cold storage by the surveyor, they cannot now go back from the findings of the surveyor.

Contending that the petitioner – cold storage is having the best of credentials with regard not only to the best infrastructure but is also renowned for its service to the farmers in the area, the counsel contends that in contravention of the condition in the agreement entered into by the complainant, they have stored poor quality of potatoes which has sprouted within a short period.  This has been clearly brought out by the surveyor in his report.  It has been stated that potato stock of no other farmer has been damaged or sprouted which goes to prove that proper temperature without any variation was maintained by the petitioner/OP in the running of the cold storage.  The counsel thereafter has contended that the District Forum has not taken into account the fact that there was huge production of potatoes in the country during the relevant period and therefore the price of potatoes had crashed.  According to him the price of potatoes per bag of 80 k.g. was approx. Rs.160/- whereas the petitioner/OP was entitled to rent of Rs.69/- per bag.  Therefore,  the complainant was entitled to only Rs.91/- (Rs.160-Rs.69 per bag) whereas the District Forum has arbitrarily assessed it at Rs.150/- per bag.   Further, if factors such as weight loss on account of natural dehydration and normal trade practices of reduction of the weight at the time of selling is taken into account, the price per bag will be further reduced.  As per the learned counsel, the total claim will thus come down to only Rs.32,060/-.

Finally, referring to the various clauses in the agreement entered into by the complainant with the petitioner, learned counsel argues that no liability can be fastened on the petitioner for the storage of poor quality of potatoes.  Liability in this case rests squarely on the complainant since he was instructed by the surveyor to take delivery of the bags as the stock was deteriorating.  The complainant deliberately failed to take back the stock and has filed a false complaint to recover the loss.  Learned counsel submits that the State Commission has failed to appreciate these aspects, in particular that the potatoes which were stored by the complainant had not been damaged due to any fault on the part of the petitioner but due to sprouting and shrinkage as they were not of storable quality to begin with.  Thus, the order being erroneous, needs to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand has contended that apart from the revision petition being liable to be dismissed on ground of delay, there is absolutely no reason for interference at the revisional stage since both the fora below have arrived at concurrent findings after an in-depth evaluation and assessment of the evidence before them.  He submits that the petition is not maintainable in as much as the petitioner has not pointed out any material irregularity or lack of jurisdiction in the exercise of their authority by the fora below.  The learned counsel submits that while the entire argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the survey report, the agreement and the challan etc., these documents were not before the District Forum and State Commission.  Clearly it amounts to adducing fresh evidence as an after-thought which is legally not permissible.   Submitting that the National Commission in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may not enter into the arena of re-evaluating or reassessing evidence much less trying to find out the facts, denovo, he contends that the revision petition needs no interference at all. 

We have also perused the records of the case. 

It is admitted that the complainant had availed the facility provided by the petitioner/OP – cold storage for the storage of his potato stock for a consideration.  Though, there are differing versions with regard to the exact number of potato bags, dispute as emerging from the pleadings/records relate to 798 bags of potato.  The claim of the petitioner that except for 400 bags, the rest of the stock have been delivered to the complainant has not been accepted by the fora below.  As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, the petitioner/OP had not produced the report of the surveyor nor the agreement before the fora below.  If, indeed the case of the petitioner/OP was based on these documents, there is no reason as to why the same were not produced in support of their case before the District Forum/State Commission.  At this revisional stage, it would not be permissible for the petitioner to adduce fresh evidence necessitating a complete re-appreciation of the whole matter. 

There being no material irregularity or any jurisdictional illegality in the order passed by the State Commission, we  would not like to interfere with the impugned order.  It has already been held by this Commission in the case of Smt. Kailash Kumari Vs. Narendra Electronics & Ors. (1986-94 Consumer 906 NS)  that it is the duty of the concerned Redressal Forum, to assess and determine in the light of evidence available in the case what amount would reasonably go to compensate the petitioner on account of negligence of the opposite party.  The District Forum, in our view did not exceed its jurisdiction  in arriving at and awarding the value of potato stock.  Thus, revision petition being devoid any merit is dismissed.  Under the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost.