1.       This revision has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 31.08.2010 of the State Commission in appeal no. 967 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 16.06.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 61 of 2006.

2.       By this Commission’s Order dated 13.05.2011 the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed subject to deposit of half of the awarded amount before the District Commission.

3.       Learned proxy counsel is present for the petitioner sugar company, its learned counsel or authorized representative is not present to argue on its behalf. Learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 1 complainant sugarcane grower. No one is present for the respondent no. 2 cane development officer to argue on its behalf.

4.       The dispute relates to delay in cutting the sugarcane crop of the complainant by the sugar company in violation of the agreed arrangement, which caused progressive deterioration in his standing crop and consequent pecuniary loss to him.

5.       This revision has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below. The incident of delay in cutting of the sugarcane crop took place in 2003-2004, the consumer complaint was filed in 2006, the District Commission passed its Order in 2007, the State Commission passed its Order in 2010, the revision before this Commission was filed in 2011, we are now in 2022. A perusal of the proceedings before this Commission reflects unfavourably on the way and manner the revision has been procrastinated for over a decade now. We find no good reason to adjourn or prolong the matter any further.

6.       Learned proxy counsel for the sugar company submits that he does not have authorization to argue the matter. He further submits on instructions from the company that an order may be passed on merit.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no error on fact or law in the impugned Order of the State Commission.

Learned counsel for the cane development officer or any authorized representative is not present to make submissions on its behalf.

7.       We have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 16.06.2007 of the District Commission, the Order dated 31.08.2010 of the State Commission and the petition.

8.       Briefly, on an understanding with the sugar company, the complainant planted sugarcane on his land holding in 2003-2004. The company did not cut the sugarcane crop in the month of December when it was in its prime, but did so belatedly in the month of March when its weight had gone down and it had also been damaged by animals in the interregnum.

The District Commission allowed the complaint, on contest. With reasons recorded, it ordered the sugar company and cane development officer to pay Rs. 88,467/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 02.03.2006 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.  

The sugar company appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission made its appraisal of the facts and evidence, as per the normal wont in appellate jurisdiction. Giving reasons therefor, it dismissed the appeal.

9.       Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that we find that the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We do not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. We also do not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We find no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

We may add that we have not had the benefit of assistance from the learned counsel of either the petitioner sugar company or the respondent no. 2 cane development officer. On our own perusal however we have not been able to come across any streak of perversity in the findings or discern any legal principle having been overlooked or wrongly ruled. Certainly the fora below cannot be castigated either to have overstepped or transgressed their jurisdiction or to have omitted to exercise the same rightfully. The facts and circumstances appear to have been weighed and vetted well and to our satisfaction.

10.     The revision petition is dismissed.

The amount if any deposited by the petitioner sugar company with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 13.05.2011 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the complainant towards satisfaction of the award, as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance award shall be made good within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.  

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.