ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 134 of 2018 in which order dated 18.01.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 106 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.06.2018 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent No. 1 before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 11.12.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments on 24.08.2023 and 13.05.2024. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte on account of absence despite service.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i) The Respondent/Complainant had stored 406 bags at the Petitioner’s cold storage, for which he paid an advance rent of Rs.20,300/-.

(ii) On 20.04.2017, an unfortunate accident occurred at one of the Petitioner’s cold storage units, causing its wall to collapse, where the Respondent’s bags were stored. The collapse was immediately reported to the customers, including the Respondent, who visited the site the same day. The Petitioner took immediate steps to protect the bags and made arrangements for their relocation to alternate storage facilities (Judge Cold Storage and Sikri Cold Storage) at the Petitioner’s expense, ensuring no damage to the bags.

(iii) Despite the Petitioner’s actions to prevent any loss, the Respondent filed a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 21.04.2017, claiming negligence in the collapse, which was followed by investigations by the Deputy Director of the Horticulture Department. The investigation report, dated 21.04.2017, indicated faulty construction as the cause of the collapse. The Petitioner was subsequently asked to submit replies to the inquiries, with multiple communications including letters from the authorities.

(iv) Further, the Respondent filed a complaint with the District Forum, Hoshiarpur on 01.06.2017, seeking compensation. The Petitioner filed a written statement in response, defending their actions and providing evidence to show the prevailing market prices of potatoes during the relevant period, as reflected in the affidavit of the Mandi Supervisor and the rate register of the Market Committee, Hoshiarpur, dated 30.10.2017.

5. Vide Order dated 18.01.2018, in the CC no. 106 of 2017 the District Commission dismissed the complaint, finding it without merit. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 18.01.2018 of District Commission, Respondent-Complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 12.06.2018 in FA No. 126 of 2018 has allowed the appeal and passed the following directions to the Opposite Party:

“i) to pay Rs.2,43,600/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant on account of damage caused to his potato bags as a result of collapse of wall of the cold storage of the opposite party, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 20.04.2017 till realization.

ii) to refund the amount of Rs.20,300/- paid by the complainant as advance rent, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

iii) to pay Rs.24,000/- on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.

6. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order