REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19th September 2014 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 433 of 2010. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents run a cold storage at village Korari Kalan on the Rae Bareili Road in District Unnao. The petitioner – Rama Shankar, kept 9 gunny bags of potatoes on payment in the aforesaid cold storage on 08.03.2006 vide receipt no. 2947/ 9 dated 08.03.2006. Each bag contained about 98-99 kgs of potatoes and the total weight was about 8 quintal 82 kgs. It was further evident from the records that the petitioner – Rama Shanker sold the above potatoes to one Mohd Saleem at the rate of Rs.750 per quintal and handed over all the required documents to him but when Mohd Salem went to collect the aforesaid potatoes from the cold storage, the respondents expressed their inability to deliver the same on the ground of putrefaction. He was also informed that the petitioner had not paid the rental charges and, therefore, after deducting all necessary charges, the respondents are ready to pay a sum of Rs.3181/- only. Upon this, Mohd Saleem informed the petitioner about the status of the storage who thereafter filed a complaint no. 288 of 2006 for redressal of his grievances with the following prayer: (a) Amount of Rs.6642.50 may be awarded to petitoner from the respondents; (b) An amount of Rs.5000/- may be awarded to petitioner from over the respondents; (c ) Interest @ 18% over Rs.11,642.50 may be awarded to petitioner during the pendency of case till the payment from the respondents: (d) The expenses of complaint and other relief found proper may be awarded. 3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unnao (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 18.02.2010 while allowing the complaint gave the following order: “The complaint is allowed accordingly and directions were issued to opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs.5540/- being the price of storage potatoes to the complainant and Rs.3000/- be paid as damages to him. A simple interest of 18% per year from the date of institution of the complaint to the date of actual payment shall also be paid over both the said amount. The complainant is entitled to Rs.1000/- from the opposite party no.1 by way of cost of complaint.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission in their order dated 19.09.2014 observed as under: “From perusal of the records, it is clear that the respondent/ complainant Rama Shanker had sold his potatoes to Mohd Saleem much before filing the complaint. This fact has been admitted by him paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of his complaint. It will not be out of place here to quote paragraph 6 & 7 of the complaint in verbatim; 
Thus, it is evident that after sale of the potatoes to Mohd Saleem, the respondent Shri Ram Shankar ceased to become a consumer vis-à-vis to the appellants in relation to potatoes stored in the cold storage. He had no cause of action to file the complaint as he was not the owner of the same on that date. He had sold the potatoes to Mohd Saleem, who had legally entered into his shoes but Mohd Salem did not lodge any complaint towards any deficiency in service. He was not made a party in the complaint before the Forum below. Thus, Rama Shankar Tripathi had no locus or cause of action to file the complaint. The appellants were only answerable to Mohd Saleem after sale and purchase who made no complaint against them. The Forum below failed to take notice of the aforesaid factum and passed the judgment without proper application of law or appreciation of facts and circumstances and, thereby committed manifest error in allowing the complaint. Consequently, the same being meritless and erroneous is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Unnao in complaint case no. 288 of 2006 is set aside. No order as to costs”. 5. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. On-going through the revision petition we find that almost no ground has been made out in the revision petition. The petitioner who is present in person contended that he had not sold the potatoes to Mohd Saleem but he was only an agent and was authorised to collect the potatoes on his behalf as there was rush at the cold storage as it takes lot of time to deposit or receive the goods from the cold storage. However, this is contrary to what he has stated in his complaint. He has stated in his complaint that: 6. The applicant has made business dealing with Mohd Saleem son of not known resident of Nawabganj Tehsil Hasanganj @ Rs.750/- per quintal by adopting the above procedure and he has given the receipt to above Mohd Saleem after obtaining Rs.1000/- by way an advance in cash. 7. On 17.10.2006 when purchaser Mohd Saleem has taken the release of said goods from the opposite party no. 1, then he was obtained very lesser goods than kept in storage from the OP no. 1 and the so called bags were found in torn condition. 8. After sometime Mohd Saleem has provided the information to applicant when he met him and also replied that the receipt of Cold Storage was kept by the opposite parties in their safety…….. 7. It is apparent from the above, that the petitioner is trying to give another story by giving different facts before us from those given in his complaint. As mentioned in the State Commission’s order the petitioner himself has stated in his complaint that after having sold the potatoes to Mohd Saleem and had taken an advance of Rs.1000/- and “cold storage ki receipt Mohd Saleem ko de diya tha”. The State Commission has correctly came to the conclusion that Rama Shanker the petitioner had no insurable interest and ceased to be a consumer in relation to the potatoes stored in the Cold Storage. Hence, no cause of action to file this complaint arises and he was not the owner of the same on the date of the complaint. 8. Lear REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19th September 2014 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 433 of 2010. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents run a cold storage at village Korari Kalan on the Rae Bareili Road in District Unnao. The petitioner – Rama Shankar, kept 9 gunny bags of potatoes on payment in the aforesaid cold storage on 08.03.2006 vide receipt no. 2947/ 9 dated 08.03.2006. Each bag contained about 98-99 kgs of potatoes and the total weight was about 8 quintal 82 kgs. It was further evident from the records that the petitioner – Rama Shanker sold the above potatoes to one Mohd Saleem at the rate of Rs.750 per quintal and handed over all the required documents to him but when Mohd Salem went to collect the aforesaid potatoes from the cold storage, the respondents expressed their inability to deliver the same on the ground of putrefaction. He was also informed that the petitioner had not paid the rental charges and, therefore, after deducting all necessary charges, the respondents are ready to pay a sum of Rs.3181/- only. Upon this, Mohd Saleem informed the petitioner about the status of the storage who thereafter filed a complaint no. 288 of 2006 for redressal of his grievances with the following prayer: (a) Amount of Rs.6642.50 may be awarded to petitoner from the respondents; (b) An amount of Rs.5000/- may be awarded to petitioner from over the respondents; (c ) Interest @ 18% over Rs.11,642.50 may be awarded to petitioner during the pendency of case till the payment from the respondents: (d) The expenses of complaint and other relief found proper may be awarded. 3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unnao (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 18.02.2010 while allowing the complaint gave the following order: “The complaint is allowed accordingly and directions were issued to opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs.5540/- being the price of storage potatoes to the complainant and Rs.3000/- be paid as damages to him. A simple interest of 18% per year from the date of institution of the complaint to the date of actual payment shall also be paid over both the said amount. The complainant is entitled to Rs.1000/- from the opposite party no.1 by way of cost of complaint.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission in their order dated 19.09.2014 observed as under: “From perusal of the records, it is clear that the respondent/ complainant Rama Shanker had sold his potatoes to Mohd Saleem much before filing the complaint. This fact has been admitted by him paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of his complaint. It will not be out of place here to quote paragraph 6 & 7 of the complaint in verbatim;
Thus, it is evident that after sale of the potatoes to Mohd Saleem, the respondent Shri Ram Shankar ceased to become a consumer vis-à-vis to the appellants in relation to potatoes stored in the cold storage. He had no cause of action to file the complaint as he was not the owner of the same on that date. He had sold the potatoes to Mohd Saleem, who had legally entered into his shoes but Mohd Salem did not lodge any complaint towards any deficiency in service. He was not made a party in the complaint before the Forum below. Thus, Rama Shankar Tripathi had no locus or cause of action to file the complaint. The appellants were only answerable to Mohd Saleem after sale and purchase who made no complaint against them. The Forum below failed to take notice of the aforesaid factum and passed the judgment without proper application of law or appreciation of facts and circumstances and, thereby committed manifest error in allowing the complaint. Consequently, the same being meritless and erroneous is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Unnao in complaint case no. 288 of 2006 is set aside. No order as to costs”. 5. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. On-going through the revision petition we find that almost no ground has been made out in the revision petition. The petitioner who is present in person contended that he had not sold the potatoes to Mohd Saleem but he was only an agent and was authorised to collect the potatoes on his behalf as there was rush at the cold storage as it takes lot of time to deposit or receive the goods from the cold storage. However, this is contrary to what he has stated in his complaint. He has stated in his complaint that: 6. The applicant has made business dealing with Mohd Saleem son of not known resident of Nawabganj Tehsil Hasanganj @ Rs.750/- per quintal by adopting the above procedure and he has given the receipt to above Mohd Saleem after obtaining Rs.1000/- by way an advance in cash. 7. On 17.10.2006 when purchaser Mohd Saleem has taken the release of said goods from the opposite party no. 1, then he was obtained very lesser goods than kept in storage from the OP no. 1 and the so called bags were found in torn condition. 8. After sometime Mohd Saleem has provided the information to applicant when he met him and also replied that the receipt of Cold Storage was kept by the opposite parties in their safety…….. 7. It is apparent from the above, that the petitioner is trying to give another story by giving different facts before us from those given in his complaint. As mentioned in the State Commission’s order the petitioner himself has stated in his complaint that after having sold the potatoes to Mohd Saleem and had taken an advance of Rs.1000/- and “cold storage ki receipt Mohd Saleem ko de diya tha”. The State Commission has correctly came to the conclusion that Rama Shanker the petitioner had no insurable interest and ceased to be a consumer in relation to the potatoes stored in the Cold Storage. Hence, no cause of action to file this complaint arises and he was not the owner of the same on the date of the complaint. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of this Commission in the case of “Handa Cold Storage and Anr. Vs Kuldip Singh and Ors” in RP No. 4208 of 2014 decided on 10.03.2015, the facts of the case does not apply to the case of hand. 9. Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Hence, the revision petition as also the complaint is dismissed.ned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of this Commission in the case of “Handa Cold Storage and Anr. Vs Kuldip Singh and Ors” in RP No. 4208 of 2014 decided on 10.03.2015, the facts of the case does not apply to the case of hand. 9. Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Hence, the revision petition as also the complaint is dismissed. | 
