ORAL

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) dated 16.08.2017 in First Appeal No.719 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

-2-

Forum, Sheikh Sari, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) dated 22.05.2013 in Complaint No.DF.VII/670/08-18/2009/1018 whereby his Appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased 15 kg of seeds of muskmelon of Madhu Ras variety for a sum of Rs.4,885/- on 16.02.2001.  On sowing it, it was found that 45% of those seeds were of inferior quality.  The contention of the Petitioner in his Complaint was that due to this inferior quality of seeds, he had suffered a loss of Rs.4,50,000/- and he claimed compensation of sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in his Complaint.  Along with this, he had also prayed for refund of Sum of Rs.18,750/- which he had spent for purchase of seeds and fertilizers and also claimed costs of Rs.2,00,000/- towards physical harassment and mental agony and sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs.

The District Forum allowed the Complaint and passed the following order:

“The Complainant has claimed loss to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- but there is no details about the calculation of this loss.  Even if it is presumed that he had suffered any loss, according to his own case 45% of the seeds supplied to him were of inferior quality.  Therefore, in our view if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

-3-

(One Lakh) is awarded as compensation in this case, it will adequately meet the ends of justice.

According, we direct the O.P. to pay to the complainant a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh) as compensation which includes cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount till realization.”

Both the Petitioner, i.e., the Complainant and the Opposite Party, i.e., the Respondent herein, challenged the order of the District Forum by way of separate Appeals.  Both the Appeals were dismissed by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was confirmed.

The said order is impugned before me by the Complainant/Petitioner on the sole ground that the compensation awarded is very low and that the Petitioner is entitled for a higher compensation to the tune of ₹4,75,000/-.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.

From the record, it is apparent that the findings as regards the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent have attained finality since the Respondent has not challenged these findings of the State Commission in the impugned order.

-4-

As regards the amount of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled to, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out any evidence on record which he had produced and had not been considered by the Fora below and thus, the findings suffer with illegality or perversity.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also failed to point out any calculation given by the Complainant while claiming loss of ₹4,75,000/-.  My attention is drawn to the letter issued by one Mr. Satpal Nambadar on 05.05.2003 wherein he had stated that pure Madhu Ras variety yields ₹50,000/- to 75,000/- from one acre of land while the other local variety yields only Rs.10,000/- from one acre.  However, from the perusal of the affidavit of the Complainant/Petitioner, it is clear that he has not proved this document in his evidence.  On enquiry, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also admits that Mr. Satpal Nambadar has not been examined as a witness before the District Forum.  This document, therefore, remains unproved by the Complainant and the Fora below thus have not committed any illegality by not relying on this document.  There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

-5-

The Jurisdiction of this Commission in Revision Petition is very limited, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269”, that this Commission, while exercising its Revisional Jurisdiction has a very limited power to interfere with the impugned order.  The Commission has held as under:

“23.   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 than 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 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 findings of two Fora”.

Since the Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity or perversity or non-exercise or wrong exercise of Jurisdiction by the Fora below, I find no reason to interfere with

-6-

the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Fora below.  The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Respondent states that they had already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the State Commission at the time of filing their Appeal and the said amount has already been released to the Petitioner and today he has handed over a cheque No.802643 dated 20.11.2018 in the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the balance amount out of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards compensation by the Fora below.  The cheque is accepted.  The compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- remains paid.  However, the interest of 12% p.a. which is payable from the date of order of the District Forum still remains unpaid.