The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot alter concurrent findings of fact unless there's a jurisdictional error.

JUDGEMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER

1. By this common order, we shall dispose of Revision Petitions No. 429 to 433 of 2025 arising from a common order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (“State Commission”) in F.A. Nos.2766 to 2770 of 2007, affirming the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bahraich (“District Forum”) order dated 09.07.2007 in Complaint Nos. 298 to 302 of 2002 respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the original complaint before the District Forum.

3. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. For ease of reference, Revision Petition No. 429 of 2025 arising out of Complaint No. 299 of 2002 is treated as the lead case, and the facts narrated herein are derived from it.

4. Briefly stated, the complainant Munna alias Rajeev alleged that on 14.04.2002, he transported 60 quintals of potatoes in vehicle Regn No. HR-58-577 to the cold storage owned by the Opposite Parties (OPs). On 15.04.2002, he deposited the said quantity in the cold storage and was issued a receipt @ ₹82 per quintal as storage charges. Despite repeated visits on 15.09.2002, 23.09.2002, 04.10.2002, 10.10.2002 & 15.10.2002, the complainant was unable to retrieve his potatoes, allegedly due to refusal by the OPs. Consequently, he claimed a financial loss equivalent to ₹650 per quintal, and filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation, interest, and other appropriate relief.

5. On being issued notice by the District Forum, OP-2 remained exparte. OP-1 Shri Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, Proprietor of Avadh Wood Product Cold Storage, filed written statement on 15.12.2006, categorically denying the allegations. He contended that the Complainant never stored any potatoes at his cold storage, and that the receipts relied upon were forged and fabricated. He further asserted that the cold storage had ceased to function from 31.12.1999 due to non-renewal of its licence under the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 and lack of infrastructure. He maintained that no operations took place in 2002, and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.

6. The District Forum, vide detailed order dated 09.07.2007, allowed all five complaints. Relevant extracts of the operative portion are as follows:

" Order

14. Complaint No. 298/2002, Complaint No. 299/2002, Complaint No. 300/2002, Complaint No. 301/2002, Complaint No. 302/2002 are allowed against the opposite party No.1. In respect of each complaint, the following order is passed against the opposite party no.1.

In complaint no. 298/2002, the O.P.no. 1 is ordered to pay Rs. 97,500/- to the complainant Baijnath Gupta and interest on it at the rate of 5% per annum for the period from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 4.12.2002, till the date of final payment. The O.P.no.1 will pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for physical and mental discomfort and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

In complaint No. 299/2002, the O.P. No. 1 shall pay Rs. 39,000/- to the complainant Munna alias Rajeev Gupta and interest at the rate of 5% on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint on 4.12.2002 till the date of final payment. The complainant shall be paid Rs. 1000/= as litigation expenses and Rs. 1000/- as compensation by the O.P.no.1.

In complaint No. 300/2002 the O.P.No.1 will pay Rs. 1,76,670/-to the complainant with 5% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint 04-12-2002 till the final payment and O.P.no. 1 will pay of Rs. 1000/- for