1. The Registry has reported a delay of 47 days in the filing of this revision petition. The revision petition is treated to be filed within time as the delay in the filing of the revision was during the period of covid pandemic which delay stands condoned by the virtue of the orders passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation and the orders passed consequently therein.
2. This revision has been filed by the petitioner sugar company questioning the correctness of the impugned order of the State Commission dated 06.12.2021 arising out of the order passed by the District Commission dated 13.01.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2011.
3. The respondent/ complainant claiming himself to be a farmer of three acres of land lodged the complaint alleging that he had planted sugarcane over a cultivated area that was promised for supply to the petitioner sugar company, but in spite of the agreed position the sugar company defaulted, as a result whereof the complainant had suffered a loss.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint on 13.01.2016 holding that there was an agreement between the parties for supply of sugarcane and the representation made by the sugar company indicated their promise, which remained unfulfilled and resulted in deficiency in service. Since the sugarcane was not received by issuing the appropriate harvesting orders within time, the farmer suffered a loss and was directed to be compensated in the terms of the order dated 13.01.2016.
5. The sugar company went up in appeal being first appeal no. 40 of 2016 that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 holding that it was admitted by both the parties that there was an agreement between the parties that the complainant will grow sugarcane crops in his field and the sugar company shall issue appropriate harvesting orders for the same for being utilized for crushing the sugarcane for sugar production. According to the findings recorded this was evident from the written version of the petitioner and as such the transaction was one of service and was not of a commercial venture hence the District Commission was justified in allowing the complaint.
6. The sugar company has come up assailing both the orders and the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the response filed by the petitioner company has been totally ignored and rather incorrectly construed to contain an admission on behalf of the petitioner about an existing agreement between the parties. To the contrary paragraph 3 of the counter filed by the petitioner company, categorically states that there is no agreement either oral or in writing. For this learned counsel has invited the attention of the Bench to paragraph 3 to 6 in particular to substantiate his submissions. Paragraph 3 to 6 of the said counter affidavit are extracted herein under:

“3. It is a deliberate falsehood to allege that as though there has been an agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party in the last week of January 2010. There cannot be any other naked falsehood than such an allegation Viz., the alleged entering of an agreement by the complainant with the opposite party.

4. To be specific and categorical that no agreement had been entered into between the complainant and the opposite party muchless any written agreement as alleged in para 4 of the complaint.

5. It is also equally false to allege that as if in pursuance of the alleged agreement, the opposite party has arranged a loan thro' Indian Overseas Bank, to meet out the expenses of the complainant for the cultivation of the sugarcane crops. It is an another falsehood to allege that as if there had been a concluded contract between the complainant and the opposite party and the same has been accepted by both the parties as alleged in para 5 of the complaint.

6. Since there is no written agreement, the complainant has conveniently stated that as if the alleged agreement is with the opposite party which is a falsehood. The alleged demand for cutting orders that too allegedly made many times to the opposite party subordinate sugarcane Inspector and other superiors from the end of December 2010 is absolutely false. Each and every allegation made in paras 7 to 10 of the complaint are specifically denied as false and they are only well knitted story, alleged in the complaint deliberately, only with a view to sustain the false complaint. The complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Forum with true facts.”

7. The aforesaid submissions have been countered by the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Khan, who has vehemently urged that findings of fact which have been recorded by the fora below cannot be disturbed in a revision petition, in as much as, the petitioner has not come up before this Commission by filing the complete set of documents and consequently the findings recorded need not be disturbed as the complainant has been justifiably compensated on account of the failure of services and the deficiency of the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner has reflected unfair trade practice by not issuing any appropriate harvesting orders, as a result whereof the farmer has suffered an irreparable loss. The contention therefore is that these facts need not be traversed once again and the impugned orders may be upheld.
8. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the main issue on which the bone of contention between the parties seems to rest is on the existence of some agreement which has been recorded to be an admitted fact by the State Commission, but which seems to have been vigorously disputed in the counter affidavit filed before the District Commission and is on record as annexure P-2. The extract of the paragraphs have been quoted hereinabove which demonstrate that there is a complete and vehement denial of the existence of any agreement oral or in writing. This issue seems to have been misconstrued and not correctly appreciated in both the orders by omitting to consider the defense quoted above. The pleadings therefore have to be taken into account and cannot be ignored while passing an order. Neither the District Commission nor the State Commission have adhered to the said pleadings and consequently seem to have arrived at a wrong conclusion. We are therefore of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the District Commission in detail before passing any orders on that count or granting any relief.
9. We therefore find this to be a fit case for interference as the relevant pleadings have been omitted to have been considered by the State Commission as well as the District Commission. We accordingly set aside the orders dated 06.12.2021 and 13.01.2016 passed by the fora below and remand the matter back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Perambalur, Tamil Nade for decision afresh.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 26.12.2024 for proceeding ahead for an early and expeditious disposal of the complaint by the District Commission that may be done preferably within six months.   
11. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.
12. Learned amicus curiae inform that he has received the entire emoluments. The Commission records its appreciation for the assistance rendered in the case.