1.       The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 14.12.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in FA No.351/2017 in which order dated 20.9.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”)  in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 81/2015 was challenged, interalia praying for modifying the order dated 14.12.2022 of the State Commission.

2.       The main prayer in the revision petition is for enhancement of the compensation. Both the fora have given a concurrent finding of deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.  The District Forum granted a compensation of Rs.10,000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.  The State Commission in appeal, enhanced a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The prayer of the petitioner herein is for enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,20,000/- on account of the loss of crops.

3.       We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission as well as District Forum, no law point has been raised for challenging the order of the State Commission.  Both the fora below have given a well-reasoned order.  As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. “The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”   

4.       We find no infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is dismissed.