1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 134 of 2018 in which order dated 18.01.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 106 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent No. 1 before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 11.12.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments on 24.08.2023 and 13.05.2024. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte on account of absence despite service.  

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

            (i)        The Respondent/Complainant had stored 406 bags at the Petitioner’s cold storage, for which he paid an advance rent of Rs.20,300/-.

            (ii)       On 20.04.2017, an unfortunate accident occurred at one of the Petitioner’s cold storage units, causing its wall to collapse, where the Respondent’s bags were stored. The collapse was immediately reported to the customers, including the Respondent, who visited the site the same day. The Petitioner took immediate steps to protect the bags and made arrangements for their relocation to alternate storage facilities (Judge Cold Storage and Sikri Cold Storage) at the Petitioner’s expense, ensuring no damage to the bags.

            (iii)     Despite the Petitioner’s actions to prevent any loss, the Respondent filed a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 21.04.2017, claiming negligence in the collapse, which was followed by investigations by the Deputy Director of the Horticulture Department. The investigation report, dated 21.04.2017, indicated faulty construction as the cause of the collapse. The Petitioner was subsequently asked to submit replies to the inquiries, with multiple communications including letters from the authorities.

(iv)      Further, the Respondent filed a complaint with the District Forum, Hoshiarpur on 01.06.2017, seeking compensation. The Petitioner filed a written statement in response, defending their actions and providing evidence to show the prevailing market prices of potatoes during the relevant period, as reflected in the affidavit of the Mandi Supervisor and the rate register of the Market Committee, Hoshiarpur, dated 30.10.2017.

5.         Vide Order dated 18.01.2018, in the CC no. 106 of 2017 the District Commission dismissed the complaint, finding it without merit. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 18.01.2018 of District Commission, Respondent-Complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 12.06.2018 in FA No. 126 of 2018 has allowed the appeal and passed the following directions to the Opposite Party:

“i) to pay ₹2,43,600/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant on account of damage caused to his potato bags as a result of collapse of wall of the cold storage of the opposite party, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 20.04.2017 till realization.

ii) to refund the amount of  ₹20,300/- paid by the complainant as advance rent, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

iii) to pay ₹24,000/- on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.      

6.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Commission inter alia on following grounds:

1. The State Commission failed to peruse the record of the case, as a perusal of the report by the Executive Engineer Ex. C-14 only goes to show that the same is a preliminary opinion that the structure of the petitioner cold store unit collapsed due to faulty construction. Moreover, in order to ascertain whether substandard material was used for construction of the cold store, more regress tests would have been required which would have taken considerable time, whereas the aforementioned report dated 21.04.2017 Ex.C-14 was prepared within a day and therefore, not reliable.

2. The State Commission failed to consider that the advance rent paid by the respondent/consumer amounting to Rs.75,000/- were not honoured by the Banks and the same has been duly pleaded by the Petitioner in para 5 of his written statement.

3. The State Commission arrived at the rate for the price for the potato seed at Rs.12/- per kg in para 19 of the impugned judgement while in fact relying on the price of the ration potato itself and not the price of the potato seed, which is a major material irregularity in the impugned judgement.

4. The State Commission failed to consider another crucial aspect of the case in as much as the respondent and other customers of the petitioner storing their bags of potatoes are not consumers in terms of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The practice of storing potatoes in a cold store is nothing but a profit making enterprise where potatoes/seeds are brought at a time when the price is low and sold later on in the market when the price is high thus, this practice is based on speculation and is not for the livelihood of the people storing their bags of potatoes/seeds with a cold store.

7.         Heard learned counsels for the Petitioner. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2023. In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that the Respondent never made the complete payment towards the availing services. Instead of recovering the stored bags of potatoes, Respondent sensed an opportunity to make profit due to the Petitioner’s misfortune made complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 21.04.2017 and also made complaint with Deputy Director of the Horticulture Department who carried out investigation and forwarded the report to DC, Hoshiarpur vide letter 21.04.2017 giving an opinion that the collapse was due to faulty construction. Petitioner further contended that compensation assessed by the State Commission is not based on any logical factor as the price taken by the State Commission is for a particular type of potato whereas the potatoes stored by the Respondent were of an inferior quality. In support of his contentions Petitioner relied upon the following judgement:

       (a) Sure Marketing Services Vs. Leo D’souza reported as 1992 C.P.C. 417 bearing RP No. 172 of 1991.

       (b) M/s Mukherji Builders & Construction Corporation Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Annupurna Mishra reported as 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 420.

8.         On the other hand Respondent, who was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2023 of this Commission had contended before the State Commission that he suffered loss of Rs.2,43,600/- due to damage to his stored potatoes in the cold storage of the Petitioner, due to faulty construction and entitled to the refund of Rs.20,300/- paid as advance rent by him, as the Petitioner failed to provide the requisite hired services.

9.         District Forum, observing that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, rather the Complainant himself is negligent, has dismissed the complaint. Extract of relevant paras of orders of District Forum is reproduced below:

“9.       After considering the submissions of ld. Counsel for the opposite party and from scanning of the case file, it has become clear that the opposite party has not denied that the complainant has deposited the potatoes in the Cold Store and it is also admitted that a part of the cold storage building had collapsed and even the opposite party in their reply stated that they are still ready to deliver the potatoes in good condition, but after getting balance amount of rent.

10.       Now, the question remains whether there is any negligence on the part of the opposite party in regard to construction of the Cold Store? The complainant has alleged in the complaint that in the month of April 2017, when he went to the cold storage of the opposite party to take his potato bags, he came to know that the Eastern side wall of the cold store has fell down and the potato seeds of the complainant ruined under the side wall. But, we find that the complainant has not produced any evidence to establish that the building of the cold store is not constructed with a standard material, whereas the opposite party has alleged in the written reply that the building of the Cold Storage was ‘A’ class construction and some part of it got damaged for some unknown reasons without any fault or negligence on the part of the opposite party.

11.       So far the concern of causing a damage to the potatoes deposited by the complainant with the opposite party by collapsing a wall of the Cold Store. No-doubt, it is the duty of the bailee i.e., opposite party to retain the goods as it, as it was deposited by the complainant till its delivery is not given. But, in this case the opposite party has retained the potatoes of the complainant in the Cold Store which was duly working and all of a sudden, if any part of the Cold Store collapsed, then further duty casted upon the opposite party to preserve the commodity of the farmers. If the owner of the Cold Store did not do so, then he is liable for negligence as well as deficiency in service. But, in this case the factum in regard to deposit of the potatoes by the complainant is not denied and collapsing of the part of the Cold Store is also not denied. So, the question only remains whether the opposite party has made efforts to preserve the potatoes after collapsing of the Cold Store. The complainant alleged that in the month of April 2017, when he went to the cold storage of the opposite party to take his potato bags, he came to know that the Eastern side wall of the cold store has fell down and the potato seeds of the complainant ruined under the said wall. But, this version of the complainant is not acceptable, because the complainant or other farmers either he is resident of the same village, where the Store is situated or are residing in the nearby village, such like incident must have come to the notice of every person of the same village as well as nearby villages. So, it means that the complainant and other farmers came to know about the collapsing of the Cold Store on the same day the incident took place. Not so, the opposite party has also made effort to inform the complainant as well as other farmers whose potatoes were stored in the Cold Store in regard to collapsing of the Cold Store and further requested them to lift their respective potatoes immediately, but despite that the complainant did not bother to preserve his potatoes by lifting therefrom and as such, we are of the considered opinion that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, rather complainant himself is negligent and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.”

10.       In appeal, State Commission vide its common order dated 12.06.2018 in various First Appeals, including FA No. 134 of 2018, filed by the Complainant-Respondent, against which RP has been filed by the Petitioner herein, allowed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Forum. Extract of relevant paras of order of State Commission as reproduced below:

“First Appeal No. 134 of 2018

59.       Similarly, in this case, the complainant paid a sum of ₹20,300/-, as advance rent, to the opposite party, vide receipt dated 01.04.2017, Mark C-4, for storing his potato bags in its cold storage. The opposite party agreed to charge ₹100/- per bag. Accordingly, the complainant got stored 406 bags of seed potatoes of 'Pukhraj' variety, vide receipts dated 31.03.2017, Mark C-2 and Mark C-3, in the cold storage of the opposite party. Eastern side wall of the cold storage of the opposite party fell down in mid April, 2017, as a result of which the potatoes stored by him in the cold storage of the opposite party got damaged.

Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking following directions to the opposite party

1. to refund the original amount of damage caused to potato seeds i.e. ₹2,84,200/-;
2. to pay compensation to the tune of ₹20,000/- for the mental agony harassment suffered by the complainant; and
3. to pay ₹10,000/-, as litigation expenses and costs of complaint.
4.  It was also prayed that any other relief, which may be deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may also be awarded.

60.       The opposite party filed reply to the complaint, on the similar lines of the reply filed by the opposite parties, as given in First Appeal No. 126 of 2018.

61.       Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.

62.       As already mentioned above in this case, the complainant stored total 406 bags of seed potatoes of ‘Pukhraj’ variety, vide receipts dated 31.03.2017, Mark C-2 and Mark C-3, in the cold storage of the opposite party. Thus, in all he suffered loss of ₹2,43,600/- (406x50x12) due to damage to his stored potatoes in the cold storage of the opposite party, due to faulty construction. In addition to it, he is also entitled to the refund of ₹20,300/- paid as advance rent by him to the opposite party, as per receipt Mark C-4, as the opposite party failed to provide the requisite hired services by the complainant from it, keeping in view the collapse of building of the cold storage. He is also entitled to interest on the above said amounts, besides compensation.

63.       In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No. 126 of 2018, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and following directions are issued to the opposite party:

i)         to pay ₹2,43,600/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant on account of damage caused to his potato bags as a result of collapse of wall of the cold storage of the opposite party, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 20.04.2017 till realization;

ii)        to refund the amount of ₹20,300/- paid by the complainant as advance rent, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till realization;

iii)       to pay ₹24,000/- on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.”

11.       In FA No. 126 of 2018 referred to in the above stated orders of the State Commission in FA No. 134 of 2018, (common order dated 12.06.2018 disposing of FA No. 126 to 137 of 2018 (in total 12) appeals pertaining to same OP (Petitioner herein)- Shri Krishna Cold Storage, the State Commission observed as follows:

“Consideration of Contentions

9.         We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

10.       In the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the following questions are to be decided, to resolve the controversy between the parties:

I) Whether the proprietor of the cold storage is liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant(s), due to damage caused to the potatoes stored in the cold storage, as a result of collapse of the wall thereof?

II) If so, how much compensation should be paid to the complainant(s)?

Question No. (I)

11.       It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant deposited potatoes of different qualities in the cold storage of the opposite parties. One set of the potatoes was for the purpose of sowing in the months of September-October, 2017, one set of potatoes is also known as Goli seed and the other set of potatoes was meant for ration, which is sold to the common man for consumption purpose. There is no dispute with regard to the quantity of the potatoes stored by the complainant in the cold storage of the opposite parties, as per the details given in bills Mark C-2 to Mark C-7. Admittedly, the wall of the cold storage collapsed on 20.04.2017, as a result of which substantial damage was caused to the cold storage, which led to damage to the goods stored therein by various farmers, including the complainant. Admittedly, the cold storage was got constructed by the opposite parties 5/6 years ago. It was the responsibility of the opposite parties to get constructed the cold store with good quality material and it cannot be accepted that the cold storage constructed by using good quality material can collapse within 5-6 years after its construction. Such thing can happen, only if sub-standard material is used for constructing the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the onus was upon the complainant to prove that sub-standard quality material was used in constructing the cold storage, cannot be accepted, as it is for the opposite parties to prove that they used good and standard quality material while constructing the cold storage, as per applicable norms.

12.       Immediately, after the incident of collapse of the cold storage of the opposite parties, various persons, including the complainant, moved complaints dated 21.04.2017 and 12.05.2017, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, as well as to the other authorities. In pursuance to the said complaints, the spot was examined by the Deputy Director, Horticulture and Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Hoshiarpur, on 21.04.2017; who submitted their report, Ex.C-14. It is clearly mentioned in this report that the columns of R.C.C. and beams had fallen, which did not appear to be solid/correct in respect of the quality and size thereof and the structure appeared to have collapsed, due to this reason. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that independent expert/person was required to be appointed, cannot be accepted; as the site was examined by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Sub Divisional Engineer and Sh. Ravinder Singh, Assistant Engineer, PWD (B&R) and Deputy Director, Horticulture Department. PWD (B&R) officials are expert in the field of building and Horticulture Department officials in the field of plant and seeds. They are the Government officers and their report is an independent report. It has been specifically mentioned in the report that the drawings supplied by the Horticulture Department regarding cold storage were seen. Specific size of the RCC columns has been mentioned in the report. The said officers concluded in the said report that the wall of the cold storage collapsed due to the size of the RCG and quality thereof. This report has been ignored by the District Forum, merely by saying that the burden of proof was upon the complainant to prove the sub-standard quality of construction of the cold storage. However, it was for the opposite parties to prove that the building of the cold storage was construction with the good and standard quality material, by way of producing the bills and other documents qua purchase of the material used for constructing the same, but no such document has been produced by them.

13.       From appraisal of above facts and evidence, we are of the view that the wall of the cold storage collapsed, which caused extensive damage to the cold storage, due to faulty construction and sub-standard material used in constructing the same, which further resulted into extensive damage to the potatoes and other goods stored therein. The opposite parties have not brought any evidence on record to prove that after collapse of the cold storage, the material at the spot was fit to be preserved and that it was in the same condition, in which it was deposited/stored at the initial stage. No expert report/cogent and convincing evidence has been produced by them in this regard.

14.       The District Forum wrongly observed that the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in Kanwal Cold Store's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact, the facts and circumstances of the present case and that of Kanwal Cold Store's case are similar, as in that case as well in the present case, the damage to the stored goods in the cold storage was occurred due to collapse of walls of the cold storage. Thus, this judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In addition to it, in the present case, no intimation was sent to the complainant in writing by the opposite parties about the collapse of the wall, causing damage to the stored goods in the cold storage. The complainant and others made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, regarding damage to their goods stored in the cold storage of the opposite parties, due to collapse of its wall. It cannot be presumed that there would be no damage to the potatoes or other goods stored in the cold storage, after the collapse of its wall. It is evident from the record that one part of the chamber of the cold storage had fully collapsed and the other was partly collapsed, as a result of which the material stored in the cold storage started rotting. The other judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are not required to be examined, as they are exactly on the same facts and circumstances, as that of Kanwal Cold Store's case. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite parties is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present, as the said case pertains to medical negligence Punjab,

15.       The opposite parties pleaded in their reply that the complainant and other persons were called upon by the opposite parties, orally as well as through written notices, to remove the goods. However, the complainant failed to remove the goods and, as such, the potatoes were shifted to Judge Cold Storage at Village Baghpur and at Sikri Cold Storage in Village Sikri, where the same were safe, undamaged and intact.

16.       In this respect, it is relevant to mention that no such written notice has been proved on record by the opposite parties to prove that the same was ever sent to the complainant, asking him to lift his potato bags. There is also no evidence on the record of the District Forum to prove that after the collapse of the building of the cold storage of the opposite parties, the goods stored therein were shifted to other places. No doubt, the opposite parties annexed the receipts of JUJ Cold Stores and Sikri Cold Stores as well as other Cold Stores, with the written arguments submitted by them in the appeal, but we find that there is no date mentioned on the said receipts and the same do not appear to be genuine receipts. Moreover, the same were not produced by the opposite parties at the time of leading their evidence before the District Forum, nor any application for additional evidence for producing such documents before this Commission has been filed by them. In such circumstances, on the basis of such type of receipts, the version of the opposite parties that after collapse of the building of the cold storage, the goods were shifted to other places or that the good were intact and safe condition after the said incident, cannot be accepted.

17.       It is also relevant to mention that no other material has been placed on record by the opposite parties to show, as to in which chamber the goods of the complainant had been stored and in what manner the stacking thereof was done. There is also no evidence to show that any material was saved and if so, to what extent. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence on record to prove that the potatoes of the appellant/complainant were safe and were not in the damaged chambers of the cold store.

18.       In view of our above discussion, we hold that once the damage occurred to the cold storage because of sub-standard quality, poor and faulty construction material etc. while constructing the same, then for the loss suffered by the complainant(s) on account of damage to their goods stored in the cold storage of the opposite parties, they are certainly liable to pay compensation to the complainant(s). Accordingly, answer to Question No. (1) is given in affirmative, in favour of the complainant..

Question No.(II):

19.       Now, it is to be seen, as to how much compensation is required to be paid to the complainant(s) for the purpose of determination of the price of the potatoes, which is to be used for various purposes, such as (i) seed potato and Goli seed, which are used for sowing purposes and (ii) edible (ration) potato which is used for consumption purposes. The receipts/bills, Mark C-2 to Mark C-7, mention the various varieties of the potatoes and number of bags stored in the cold storage of the opposite parties. Perusal of receipts, Mark C-8 and Mark C-9; shows that the complainant paid advance rent of ₹25,000/- and ₹75,000/- respectively to the opposite parties on 11.04.2017. In many receipts, the quality of the potato is mentioned as "Pukhraj". As per letter dated 01.08.2017, Ex.C-19, the price of the potato, which is used as seed, was not available in the office of Market Committee, as it is free from market fee. Only the rates of ration potato, which is used for consumption purposes, are available in the market. It has further been specifically mentioned in letter dated 01.08.2017, Ex.C-19, that the price of the potato during season of September, 2016, ranged from ₹350/- to ₹900/- per quintal. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh. Sarabjit Kumar, Mandi Supervisor, Market Committee, Hoshiarpur, Ex OPs-2, along with copy of register of daily import and prices of various vegetables, Ex.OPs-3; in which price of potatoes during the months of April and May, 2017 was ranging from ₹60 to ₹280/- per quintal. However, this is the price of the potatoes pertaining to the time, when the crop in abundance comes to the market. The Mandi Supervisor, in his affidavit, Ex. OPs 2, stated that price of Pukhraj potato is the lowest price in the market. The said affidavit has no value. At the most, it can be the price of ration potato, which is sold to the Market Committees. It does not depict the price of seed of the potato. However, in our view, he otherwise cannot mention the price of the potatoes, because price of the seed is always higher, because it is the quality material kept for the purpose of sowing. The opposite parties have not mentioned the prevalent rate/price of the potatoes in receipts, Mark C-2 to Mark C-7, at the time of depositing/storing the material in their cold storage by the complainant. The opposite parties should have mentioned the prevalent price of the potatoes (per kg./per bag) at the time of deposit of the same in their cold storage, on the basis of which the rate of the potatoes at the time of loss could have been determined. In such circumstances, we will have to look into the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them in support thereof. Thus, keeping in view the affidavit of the Mandi Supervisor and the market rate of the potatoes in the sowing season as well as entire facts and circumstances of the case, we assess the price of Pukhraj potatoes as ₹600-700/- per bag of 50 kg., meaning thereby that it would range between ₹12/- per kg. to ₹14/- per kg. in the month of April, 2017. It is a matter of common knowledge that the price of the seed potato always remains on higher side around ₹12/- per kg. in the local markets; meaning thereby that the price per bag of 50 kg. virtually ranges around ₹600/-.

20. Now, we have to determine the price of ration seed. As per Market Committee, Hoshiarpur record, Ex OPs-3, its price ranged between ₹60/- and ₹280/- per quintal during the month of April, 2017. In September, 2017, it ranged between ₹120/- and ₹380/- per quintal; in October, 2017, it ranged between ₹90/- and ₹310/- per quintal. It means that the average rate remained between ₹3/- to ₹4/- per kg. It is matter of common knowledge that the potato is not sold in the market during this period for this much price, although Commission Agents may be selling the same at this price

21. So, in the light of the evidence and circumstances discussed above, we assess the rate of seed potato as ₹12/- per kg. and the rate of edible (ration) potato as ₹4/- per kg. during the relevant time as per their nature.

22 In the present case, as per receipts, Mark C-2, Mark C- 3, Mark C-6 and Mark C-7, the complainant got stored 940 bags, 50 kg. each, of seed potatoes. Thus, taking the price of seed potatoes as ₹12/- per kg., the complainant suffered loss of ₹5,64,000/- (940 x 50 x 12) on account of loss caused to his seed potato bags due to collapse of wall of the cold storage of the opposite parties. Similarly, as per receipts, Mark C-4 and Mark C- 5, the complainant got stored 488 bags, 50 kg. each, of ration potatoes. Thus, taking the price of ration potatoes as ₹4/- per kg., the complainant suffered loss of ₹97,600 (488 x 50 x 4) on account of loss caused to his ration potato bags due to collapse of wall of the cold storage of the opposite parties. The total of above the above amounts comes to ₹6,61,600/-, which is liable to be paid to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 20.04.2017 till realization. In addition to it, the opposite parties are also liable to refund the amounts of ₹25,000/- and ₹75,000/- paid by the complainant to them on 11.04.2017 as advance rent, vide receipts Mark C-8 and Mark C-9, respectively, along with interest; as they failed to provide the hired services to the complainant for safe storing of the potato bags of the complainant. Besides this, the opposite parties are also liable to pay ₹50,000/- as compensation on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant at their hands. Question No.(II) is accordingly disposed of.

Relief

23.       In view of our above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to pay ₹6,61,600/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant on account of damage caused to his potato bags as a result of collapse of wall of the cold storage of the opposite parties, along with interest at the rate of 10%. per annum from the date of loss i.e. 20.04.2017 till realization;

ii) to refund the amount of ₹1,00,000/- paid by the complainant as advance rent, vide receipts Mark C-8 and Mark C-9, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date receipt i.e. 11.04.2017 till realization;

iii) to pay ₹55,000/- on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.”

12.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and contentions of the Petitioner herein. State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, duly addressing the contentions of the Petitioner herein and we are in agreement with its observations and findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission calling for any interference at the revision state. According, order of the State Commission is upheld and RP is dismissed.

13.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.