ORDER

1.      This revision petition assails the order dated 12.05.2017 in First Appeal No. 981 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, the ‘District Forum’) dated 02.12.2016 in Consumer Complaint no. CC 51 of 2016.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant stated before the District Forum that he stored 1087 bags of potatoes in the petitioner’s cold storage in May 2015 for which he was charged Rs.20,000/- as part payment. In November 2015 when the respondent complainant sought to take back the stored potatoes, it was found that all the potatoes had been spoiled. Stating that the cost per bag of potatoes was Rs 600/-, the respondent complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 24.11.2015 who found the allegation to be true based on a report by the Deputy Director (Horticulture) and due to negligence. The District Forum concluded, on contest, that the claim was valid and partially allowed the complaint in respect of 441 bags of potatoes and directed payment of Rs 2,64,600/- along with compensation of Rs 5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs 2,000/- within one month, failing which with 9% p.a. interest. An appeal was preferred against this order by the petitioner opposite party before the State Commission where the appellant (petitioner respondent) failed to appear to argue his case. The State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum holding the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 

3.      The petitioner respondent contends that the fora below failed to appreciate that the respondent complainant was not a ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he had not established how the storage of potatoes in the cold storage amounted to earning of livelihood. He had not approached the court with clean hands as his contention that he had not taken any bag of potatoes had been negated by the finding of the District Forum which held that only 441 bags were remaining and not 1087 bags. It is stated that orders of the lower fora were based on surmises and conjectures. It was not disclosed that the cut off date for withdrawing the bags of potatoes was 15.10.2015 and that the petitioner had no responsibility for the stored potatoes after that as it was the respondent’s own case that he approached the petitioner in November 2015 and that this was a material irregularity which was not appreciated by the fora below. It is contended that the reliance on the report of the Horticulture Department should not have been regarded as the receipts for the deposits clearly states that the cut-off date for the storage was 15 October 2015. It is also contended that the fact that no rent was paid for the bags stored at the cold storage and therefore there was no contract for services was not considered. The petitioner relied on this Commission’s orders in M/s Mukherji Builders & Construction Corporation Vs.  (Mrs.) Annupurna Mishra, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 420 and Sure Marketing Services Vs. Leo D’souza, MANU/CF/0384/1992 to aver that the petitioner needs to come before this Commission with clean hands and on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., MANU/SC/0628/1996 to aver that the terms and conditions on the receipt are binding.       

4.      I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.

5.      The finding of the District Forum is as under:

As the complainant alleged that he stored 1087 bags of potatoes whereas the opposite party alleged that the complainant has deposited only 649 bags out of which he received back 285 bags of potatoes but as per evidence of the co