National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Awadh Wood Products vs Munna Urf Rajiv Gupta S/O. Baijnath ... on 28 October, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON: 14.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 28.10.2025
REVISION PETITION NO.429 OF 2025
(Against the final order dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.2767/2007
of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh)
WITH
IA/2959/2025 (Stay)
Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
(Erstwhile) Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa,
Assam Road, District - Bahraich, U.P.
Through Mr. Mukesh Maheshwari
S/o Late Madan Mohan Maheshwari,
R/o Fat No.105, Passion Enclave,
8/58 C, 8/59E, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 208002. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Munna @ Rajiv Gupta
S/o Baij Nath Gupta,
Cloth Merchant, R/o Village and Post Rupaidiha,
District Baharaich, U.P.
2. Jagat Narain Tiwari,
Alleged Manager, Old Address
In Complaint - Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa, Assam Road,
District Bahraich, U.P. (Not in service of Petitioner)
Presently nothing in known. ... Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO.430 OF 2025
(Against the final order dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.2768/2007
of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh)
WITH
IA/2960/2025 (Stay)
Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
(Erstwhile) Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa,
Assam Road, District - Bahraich, U.P.
Through Mr. Mukesh Maheshwari
S/o Late Madan Mohan Maheshwari,
R/o Fat No.105, Passion Enclave,
8/58 C, 8/59E, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 208002. ... Petitioner
RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 1 of 10
Versus
1. Siddh Nath Gupta
S/o Sri Hira Lal
R/o Village and Post Rupaidiha,
District Baharaich, U.P.
2. Jagat Narain Tiwari,
Alleged Manager, Old Address
In Complaint - Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa, Assam Road,
District Bahraich, U.P. (Not in service of Petitioner)
Presently nothing in known. ... Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO.431 OF 2025
(Against the final order dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.2769/2007
of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh)
WITH
IA/2962/2025 (Stay)
Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
(Erstwhile) Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa,
Assam Road, District - Bahraich, U.P.
Through Mr. Mukesh Maheshwari
S/o Late Madan Mohan Maheshwari,
R/o Fat No.105, Passion Enclave,
8/58 C, 8/59E, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 208002. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Virendra
S/o Sri Hira Lal
R/o Village and Post Rupaidiha,
District Baharaich, U.P.
2. Jagat Narain Tiwari,
Alleged Manager, Old Address
In Complaint - Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa, Assam Road,
District Bahraich, U.P. (Not in service of Petitioner)
Presently nothing in known. ... Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO.432 OF 2025
(Against the final order dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.2770/2007
of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh)
WITH
IA/2964/2025 (Stay)
RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 2 of 10
Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
(Erstwhile) Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa,
Assam Road, District - Bahraich, U.P.
Through Mr. Mukesh Maheshwari
S/o Late Madan Mohan Maheshwari,
R/o Fat No.105, Passion Enclave,
8/58 C, 8/59E, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 208002. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Hira Lal (Since deceased)
Through his LRs:
(i) Sri Siddhnath Gupta
(ii) Sri Baijnath Gupta
(iii) Sri Virendra
R/o Village and Post Rupaidiha,
District Baharaich - 271881, U.P.
2. Jagat Narain Tiwari,
Alleged Manager, Old Address
In Complaint - Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa, Assam Road,
District Bahraich, U.P. (Not in service of Petitioner)
Presently nothing in known. ... Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO.433 OF 2025
(Against the final order dated 28.10.2024 in Appeal No.2766/2007
of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh)
WITH
IA/2968/2025 (Stay)
Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
(Erstwhile) Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa,
Assam Road, District - Bahraich, U.P.
Through Mr. Mukesh Maheshwari
S/o Late Madan Mohan Maheshwari,
R/o Fat No.105, Passion Enclave,
8/58 C, 8/59E, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 208002. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Baij Nath Gupta
S/o Sri Hira Lal
R/o Village and Post Rupaidiha,
District Baharaich, U.P.
RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 3 of 10
2. Jagat Narain Tiwari,
Alleged Manager, Old Address
In Complaint - Awadh Wood Products (Cold Storage),
Mihinpurwa, Post - Mihinpurwa, Assam Road,
District Bahraich, U.P. (Not in service of Petitioner)
Presently nothing in known. ... Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd.),
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Aman Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/
Complainants : Mr. Avadhesh Tripathi, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Kumar Shukla, Advocate
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.
RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 4 of 104. 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 RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 5 of 10 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 physical and mental discomfort and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses.
In complaint no. 301/2002.The O.P. no. 1 will pay Rs.22,230 to the complainant Mr. Virendra and interest on this amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the date filing the complaint 04- 12-2002 till the final payment. The O.P.no.1 shall pay Rs. 1000 for physical and mental discomfort and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses.
In Complaint No. 302/2002,O.P.no.1 shall pay Rs. 97,500/- to the complainant Hiralal and interest on this amount at the rate of 5% per cent per annum for the period from the date of filing the case from 04-12-2002 till the date of final payment. Opposite party no.1 shall pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for physical and mental discomfort and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
In case the amount ordered in each complaint or the amount ordered in any one complaint is not paid within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment, interest will be payable at the rate of 8% per annum instead of Rs. 5% per annum after 2 months after the receipt of the judgment."
(Extract from translated copy)
7. Aggrieved, OP-1 filed Appeal Nos. 2766 to 2770 of 2025 before the State Commission. These were dismissed by a common order dated 28.10.2024, affirming the District Forum's findings. Relevant extracts of the operative portion are as follows -
RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 6 of 10"ORDER 11- All the above appeals, namely, Appeal No.2766/2007, Appeal No.2767/2007, Appeal No.2768/2007, Appeal No.2769/ 2007 and Appeal No.2770/2007 are dismissed.
If any amount has been deposited by the appellant in the presented appeals, then the said amount deposited along with the interest earned should be sent to the concerned District Commission as early as possible for disposal in accordance with law.
The original copy of this decision order be kept in Appeal No. 2766/2007 and a true copy of it be kept in the concerned appeals also.
The stenographer is expected to upload this decision on the Commission's website as early as possible in accordance with the rules." (Extract from translated copy)
8. Dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of both the lower fora, OP-1 (Petitioner herein) has filed the present Revision Petitions, seeking to set aside the impugned orders.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/OP-1 argued that the State Commission erred in recording findings that were factually incorrect, specifically that the case was decided ex parte and the complainant's affidavit went unrebutted. It was contended that the State Commission failed to consider the Petitioner's written statement, affidavit and other documents, including a certificate dated 19.10.2007 issued by the District Horticulture Officer, Bahraich, confirming that the cold storage's licence stood expired in 1999-2000 itself. The counsel argued that the storage receipts were forged, containing inconsistencies such as mentioning Kanpur instead of Bahraich, and that even the Complainant's own documents (like a letter dated 02.11.2002) revealed contradictions, casting serious doubt on the case. He argued that the cold storage was non-functional and dismantled by 2002, and no liability could arise against the Petitioner.RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 7 of 10
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Complainants supported the concurrent findings and prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petitions. He relied on Avadh Wood Products vs. Deena Natha & Anr., 1999 (3) CPJ 512; and Avadh Wood Products (Cold Storage) vs. Maulana Sabir, 2003 (4) CPJ 437; M/s. Awadh Wood Products vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors, Appeal No.110 of 2011 dated 26.07.2012 by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction).
11. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents paced on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.
12. The learned District Forum as well as the State Commission have gone into detailed evaluation of facts and evidence brought forth and passed detailed and well reasoned orders. While OP-1 produced a certificate purportedly issued by the District Horticulture Officer, Bahraich dated 19.10.2007 stating that the license of the said cold storage expired in 1999 - 2000 the same was not relied upon. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Complainant produced an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction) in Appeal No.110 of 2011 between M/s Awadh Wood Products (Petitioner in this case) Vs UP Power Corporation Ltd & Ors., dated 26.07.2012 to establish that the said cold storage was in fact functional even the year 2003-04. As regards the allegation of OP-1 that the storage receipts were forged, it is an admitted position of OP-1 that OP-1 did not initiate any legal recourse against the Complainant. Further, the contention of OP-1 that the receipt produced by Complainant contained inconsistencies such as mentioning Kanpur instead of Bahraich is of limited consequence since even in the said order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction) in Appeal No.110 of 2011 between the Petitioner and UP Power RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 8 of 10 Corporation Ltd & Ors dated 26.07.2012, same address is mentioned. The Complainant has also provided storage receipts and evidence of depositing potatoes as stated.
13. It is settled law that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act) is limited and can only be invoked when the lower forum has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or committed material irregularity.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has clarified that revisional powers are not meant to re-appreciate facts or evidence.
15. Similarly, in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, vide Order dated 21.01.2022 the Apex Court held that :-
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in- depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
16. Also, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 9 of 10 State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
17. In view of the foregoing and after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments advanced, we find no reason to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned orders of the learned District Forum dated 09.07.2007 and the learned State Commission dated 28.10.2024. Revision Petitions No. 429 to 433 of 2025 are, therefore, dismissed.
18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
19. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
............................................................ (AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.) PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................... (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.) MEMBER /bs RPs 429-433 OF 2025 Page 10 of 10