PAWAN SHEET GRAH PVT. LTD vs VIRENDRA KUMAR ALIAS CHHOTE LAL JAIN & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 06-11-2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission''), in First Appeal No. 2387 of 2007 - Naveen Cold Storage Vs. Virendra Kumar alias Chhotey Lal Jain, by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No. 1 Sri Virendra Kumar Jain Alias Chotely Lal Jain had entrusted a consignment of 511 potato bags for preservation in Kesri Cold Storage and obtained the receipts of delivery. M/s Naveen Cold Storage, Itawa has now taken over the old firm of Kesri Cold Storage, Virari, Itawa. The complainant handed over two receipts to the Manager of the above mentioned Cold storage and on the basis of the said receipts two consignment of bags comprising 160 bags and 164 bags were sold by the Cold Storage to M/s Mohan Lal Nehchal Das of Jabalpur. The said firm remitted two drafts for Rs.39,765.00 and Rs.40,400.00 to the Cold Storage. In the invoices by virtue of which the two consignments were disposed of the name of the complainant Sri Chotely Lal Jain was shown to be as the owner of the potatoes. In spite of the receipts of total amount of Rs.80,1656.00 the complainant was not paid the price of the potatoes. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party no. 1 - Kesri Cold Storage resisted complaint and submitted that goods were stored in cold storage for commercial purpose so District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 2 - Naveen Cold Storage did not file written statement. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite parties to pay Rs.80,165/- along with Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by Naveen Cold Storage was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

Respondent No. 2A, 2B and 3 were proceeded ex-parte.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of not taking liability of goods at the time of purchase of Cold Storage learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed mistake in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

Perusal of record reveals that complainant filed complaint against opposite party no. 1 - Kesari Cold storage and opposite party no. 2 - Naveen Cold storage which was allowed by learned District Forum against both opposite parties vide order dated 25.11.2005. only Naveen Cold storage filed appeal no. 2387 of 2007 before State Commission though as per Sale Deed dated 07.01.2003 Kesri Cold storage was purchased by petitioner - Pawan Sheet Grah Pvt. Ltd. Either petitioner should have filed application before District Forum for substitution of party or he should have filed appeal before State Commission. Appeal was filed by Naveen Cold storage and in Para 7 of Memo of Appeal it was mentioned that Managing Director Fakeer Chand Agarwal purchased Kesri Cold Storage on 07.01.2003 vide registered Sale Deed. It is strange to note that this appeal was filed by Naveen Cold Storage whereas appeal should have been filed by petitioner as petitioner purchased this cold storage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference of purchase has been given in Para 7 of memo of appeal and erroneously appeal was filed in wrong name. This argument is devoid of force because when petitioner was aware that he was to file appeal, appeal should have been filed in proper name. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner was neither party before District Forum nor party before State Commission and first time filed this revision petition before this Commission. Petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge different orders of Fora below in one revision petition particularly when he was not party before District Forum and State Commission.

In the light of aforesaid discussion revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as having been filed without locus-standi. But at the same time petitioner is to be given liberty to raise objections before District Forum in execution proceedings, if any drawn against petitioner.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with liberty to file objections before District Forum, if any execution proceedings are drawn against the petitioner. District Forum is directed not to issue any certificate of recovery against the petitioner without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Parties to bear their costs.