This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Satya Shakti Cold Storage  against the order dated 1.5.2017  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) passed in F.A. No.921 of 2015.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent has kept 1316 packets of potatoes during the period from 8.3.2013 to 22.3.2013 with the petitioner/opposite party on  rent @ Rs.75/- per packet till 31.10.2013.   When complainant went to take them back on 16.10.2013,  OP/petitioner  asked him to come again after two days. When he went again on 18.10.2013 to take out the potato, OP informed him that the potatoes got destroyed due to failure of electricity.  Complainant pursued a lot for his money but finally petitioner refused to pay anything to respondent on 31.1.2014. Thereafter,  complainant filed a complaint which was allowed by District Forum directing the OP to pay @ Rs.350 per packet alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment  together with Rs.3,000/- towards mental hardship and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.  Opposite party then filed appeal which was dismissed by the  State Commission vide its order dated 1.5.2017.

3.       Hence, this revision petition.

4.       Learned counsel was heard at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though both the fora below have given concurrent findings and the State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has overlooked the legal aspect of the order of the District Forum that the order of the District Forum, Lucknow  has not been signed by the President and bears signatures of only two Members.  The learned counsel pointed out that as per Section 14(2)(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 every proceeding of the District Forum is required to be signed by the President and  the Member who heard the case. Thus, the order of the District Forum is a nullity and the State Commission should have remanded the matter to the District Forum. In this situation, however, the State Commission decided the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. The learned counsel mentioned that though this point was not exactly raised in the appeal, however, it was stated that the order passed by the District Forum was not maintainable. The State Commission has ignored all the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal.

5.       I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record.

6.       As both the fora below have given concurrent findings of fact which cannot be relooked at the stage of revision petition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  the following cases:

(1)   In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 ; wherein following has been observed:

        “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

(2)     In Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors.   Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed:

“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.”    

7.       It is clear from the above authoritative judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the scope under the revision petition becomes very limited  when both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts. The only  case of the petitioner is that the order of the District Forum dated  15.4.2015 does not bear the signatures of the President of the District Forum  and it has been signed by two Members. In this regard, it seems  that Section 22D and Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have relevance and the same are reproduced as below:

      “Section 22D. Vacancy in the office of the President:  When the office of President of a District Forum, State Commission, or of the National Commission, as the case may be, is vacant or a person occupying such office is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, these shall be performed by the senior-most member of the District Forum, the State Commission or of the National Commission, as the case may be;

    Provided that where a retired Judge of a High Court is a member of the National Commission, such member or where the number of such member is more than one, the senior-most person amongst such members, shall preside over the National Commission in the absence of President of that Commission.”

    “Section 29A.   Vacancies or defects in appointment not to invalidate orders:     No act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution.”

8.       From the Section 22D of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  it is clear that even if the post of President of District Forum is vacant, the Forum can function with its senior most Member acting as President. Thus, there may be a situation when two Members of the District Forum have to sign the order. Moreover,  Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 further states that no proceeding shall be invalid because of any vacancy in any Consumer Forum or due to any defect in its constitution.  It is seen from the record that the OP/petitioner herein had not raised this point specifically in its appeal before the State Commission, though in general terms it has been stated that the order of the District Forum was not maintainable. Once both the fora below have given their findings on merits in the light of Sections 22D and 29A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, I am not inclined to annul the proceedings of both the consumer fora  only on this technical point.

9.       I do not find any merit in the revision petition and based on the   above discussion, the Revision Petition No.3082 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.