No appeal or revision lies to the National Commission against the orders of the appellate forum (State Commission) made in furtherance of an appeal against the original order from the District Forum. The State Commission cannot award general damages to the complainants in the absence of any evidence to prove the loss suffered by them.

1. Nadippisai Pulavar K.R.Ramaswamy Sugar Mill is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. Revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are against the order made in A.P.Nos.217 of 1991 and 218 of 1991, dated 18.3.1992 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly naratted hereunder:- The 1st respondent in both the revisions in order to raise sugarcane crop in their respective field, applied to become a shareholder of the petitioner sugar mill through the 2nd respondent herein, which is a primary agricultural co-operative bank. It is their further case that both of them were agriculturists and after becoming a member of the 2nd respondent co-operative bank requested the said bank to advance loan to become a shareholder of the petitioner sugarmill. It is further averred that as per the request made by the 1st respondent herein, in each case, the 2nd respondent has sanctioned loan and forwarded the same to the petitioner sugar mill. According to the 1st respondent, even after several months, the petitioner sugar mill has not enrolled them as member of the sugar factory, due to which according to them, they were unable to raise sugar cane crop. Hence, both of them filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Tanjore in O.P.No.94 of 1991 and 95 of 1991. Before the District Forum the petitioner herein filed a detailed counter- affidavit stating that they have not received any application form accompanied by necessary amount duly signed by the parties with all particulars including the particulars of Survey numbers and extent of lands etc. In the absence of particulars and forms, it is not possible for them to enroll them as a member of the sugar mill. The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank has also filed separate counter-affidavit.

3. The District Forum after holding that the complainants have not furnished the necessary particulars in the approved forms for which the sugar mill cannot be blamed, has not issued any direction to the petitioner herein. However, directed the complainants to furnish the necessary particulars as mentioned in the counter-affidavit of the sugar mill within a period of one month from the date of its order.

4. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainants filed appeals A.P.Nos.217 and 218 of 1991 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras for compensation. The petitioner herein has not filed any appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after considering whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation and after holding that "they have not proved by acceptable evidence with regard to the loss suffered", however, directed the petitioner herein to pay general damages of Rs.2,000 to the complainants in both the cases as compensation. The said order of the State Commission are now being challenged in the present two revision petitions.

5. Regarding the maintainability of the revision filed in this Court, Mr.NJothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no appeal or revision is provided to National Commission against the orders of the appellate forum (State Commission) made in furtherence of an appeal against the original order from the District Forum. He points out that the appeals to the National Commission is provided only in respect of matters dealt by the State Forum in its original jurisdiction. By reading of Section 17 and 19 of the said Act, he submits that the petitioners have no other remedy except approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 17 deals with jurisdiction of the State Commission which is extracted hereunder:

"17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission:- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jursidiction:-

(a) to entertain-

(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed