1.      This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against Order dated 31.05.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 564/2008. In the i Order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of OP- 1 while upholding the order dated 24.06.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (‘District Forum’) in CC No. 107/2007.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that seeking self-employment, he entered into an agreement on 30.05.2005 with OP-1 (the appellant) and OP-2 (Respondent No.2) to cultivate Safed Musli. OP-1 agreed to provide assistance during sowing and facilitate the purchase of the produce through OP-2, who was responsible for financial assistance. The complainant, trained as a certified herb cultivator, cultivated Safed Musli on 2.5 acres of his father's land. As per the agreement, the OPs were to buy back the entire crop at Rs. 1,000/- per kg, but failed to do so despite repeated requests. This resulted in the spoilage of the Safed Musli and an increased bank loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service the complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as the buy-back value and Rs. 5,00,000/- for financial loss and mental distress.

4.      In reply, OP-1 denied that the complainant was a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, though admitted to the agreement dated 30.05.2005. OP-1 stated that OP-2 was responsible for buying back Safed Musli cultivated on one acre, but since the complainant cultivated 2 acres and 50 decimals, in violation of the agreement, the OPs were not obligated to buy it back. OP-1 also contended that the complainant had not paid for 500 kg of dry Musli and the transaction was commercial, thus, falling outside the Act. Citing Clause 17 of the MOU, OP 1 stated that the dispute had been referred to arbitration, making the complaint non-maintainable, and requested its dismissal.

5.      In reply, OP-2 contended that the relationship between them and the complainant was that of a seller and buyer, and therefore, the complainant did not fall under the purview of the Act. OP 2 contended that, according to settled law, a sale and purchase transaction between two parties did not constitute a "service" as defined under the Act, making the dispute non-maintainable before the Forum. OP-2 further contended that the sale and purchase of Safed Musli was for profit and not for personal consumption, categorizing Safed Musli cultivation as a commercial activity, as recognized by the State Medicinal Plant Board. Therefore, the Safed Musli was to be considered as having been procured for commercial purpose. OP-2 also highlighted the lack of specific figures on the expenditure and investment for cultivation, and in the absence of such key evidence, complaint should be dismissed.

6.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 24.06.2008, allowed the complaint with the following directions:

“In the result, the Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to pay to the Complainant, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.10,000/- only with 9% interest per annum chargeable from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. Dt.27/10/2007, within 30 hence, failing which both the amounts shall carry 12% interest per annum till payment.                              Complaint allowed accordingly.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, OP 1 filed Appeal No. 564/2008 and the State Commission vide order dated 31.05.2017 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following observations: -

       “We have also gone through the judgment of the learned District Forum. It appears that the learned District Forum has rightly discussed about the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non-payment of price of the Tubers and the learned District Forum rightly held that to earn his livelihood, respondent no.1 had cultivated Safed Musli. Cultivation of Safed Musli plants may be commercial crops, but the same does not include that it has been cultivated for commercial purpose. It is for earning the livelihood of the person who cultivates the same. Therefore, the complainant/ respondent no. 1 falls under the category of 'consumer'.

 In the result, after analysis of the facts of the case and through the order of the learned District Forum, we do not find any merit in this appeal. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence ordered.

ORDER

  This appeal is dismissed on contest.

  Records received from the Dist. Forum be returned at the earliest.”

8.      Dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, OP filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission praying:

“A)  Allow the present Revision Petition and records of the CC No. 107/2007 in the District Forum may be called for; and

B) Set aside the judgment and order dated 31.05.2017 in FA No.564/2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack; and

C) Set aside the judgment and order dated 24.06.2007 in CC No.107/2007 passed by the District Forum; and

D) Pass such further order/orders or directions as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper.”

9.      The learned counsels for OP-1 reiterated the arguments made before both lower fora and referred to the MOU dated 30.05.2005 and argued that OP-1 was not authorized by OP-2 to buy back the said produce i.e. Safed Musli. Therefore, if OP-2 did not buy back Safed Musli as per MOU, the said liability could not be fastened on OP-1. The arbitration award dated 06.02.2008 wherein the learned Arbitrator passed the award and held that OP-2 was not obliged to purchase or buy back the Safed Musli from complainant. He asserted that the complainant was not a consumer, as the dispute was purely contractual and commercial in nature. The issue arose from the non-performance of Clauses 12 and 16 of the MOU, with remedies already provided under Clause 17. Failure to buy back the product did not qualify as a consumer dispute without proof of damage. He did not claim any damage or loss due to OP-2’s failure to buy back, only that the buy-back did not occur.

10.  The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts and the findings of the lower Fora. They relied upon M/s. Baba Group Enterprises & Anr. v. Shri Dinesh Pramanik, 2008 (3)CPR 39 (NC) and M. Hemalatha Devi and Others Vs. B. Udayasri, 2023 SCC Online SC 1686 and argued that buy back facility was within the ambit of consumer law. As consumer disputes were non-arbitrable, consumers could not be compelled into arbitration.  Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present petition with costs. No one appeared for OP-2 and hence they were proceeded against ex-parte.

11.    I have examined the pleading and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

12.    It is undisputed that an Agreement dated 30.05.2005 was entered into between the parties. The complainant underwent training as a herbal medicinal cultivator and his land was selected and its soil was tested for Safed Musli cultivation, OP-1 had recommended to the SBI, Barpali, vide letter No. 47 dated 13.08.2005, for payment to the complainant for 500 kg of seed material @ Rs. 300/- per kg, and OP-2 assured to buy back good quality dry Safed Musli are facts that are not in dispute. These facts have been admitted or established through evidence, as confirmed by the District Forum.

13.    The primary issue before us is whether there was any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the learned District forum and learned State commission? OP-1 primarily relied the claim that in April 2006, OP-1 had requested for of dry sample for onward transmission to OP-2 for OP-2 to purchase Safed Musli from him, but the complainant did not comply. However, no such letter is on record to support the same. It was also argued that he cultivated 2.5 acres of land, contrary to the 1 acre specified in the MOU, thus violating the agreement. This issue was addressed by the District Forum as follows and was subsequently upheld by the State Commission.

“They raise the question that the Complainant have cultivated Safed Musli in A2.50dec. of land instead of A1.00 dec as provided by the MOU. The Complainant submits that the mentioning of A2.50dec. was a typographical error and in fact, he has grown Safed Musli in A1.00dec. of land.”

14.    Moreover, it is a well settled position in law that revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revisional jurisdiction is limited. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission, warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, dated 21.01.2022, wherein it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited: -

"9. It is needless to say that 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. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

15.    Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, dated 08.09.2022, held that:-

“As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.”

16.    In Narendran Sons v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 dated 07.03.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

 "The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission exercised jurisdiction has not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it"

17.    Considering the above discussion, it is evident that both the impugned order of the State Commission dated 31.05.2017 in Appeal No. 564/2008 and the order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the District Commission in CC No. 107/2007 does not suffer any illegality or material irregularity which call for any interference of this Commission and the same are affirmed.

18.    Therefore, Revision Petition No. 2883 of 2017 is dismissed.

19.    Considering the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.