ASIM KUMAR MONDAL,J. - (1.) THE instant C.O. arises out of an order passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal, West Bengal in S.C. Case No. FA/496/2009.
(2.) THE defendant/appellant Sk. Saifuddin Ali, complaint against the Proprietor, Mahalakshmi Himghar Pvt. Ltd, Nilgange, Chandrakona, District � Paschim Mednapore under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act before District Consumer Forum. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner being a consumer of the Opposite Party kept 6743 bags of potato totaling 3372 quintals in the opposite parties cold storage in the year 2008 against 61 bonds for which the rental charge was given to the opposite party according to rate fixed. The last date of taking out potato from cold storage was 13th November to 31 December 2008. The petitioner approaches the opposite party to allow him to sale out his potatoes in other states and made representative to the cold storage authority. The opposite party declined to allow the petitioner to do the same, however the opposite party itself extended the last date by 15th January 2009. In view of the adamant stand taken by the opposite party, the petitioner could not remove his potatoes from the cold storage. Ultimately without any notice to the petitioner, the opposite party sold the petitioner's potatoes and realised Rs. 5,55,275/- and adjusted the same against the loan payable by the petitioner and demanded an amount of Rs. 2,31,159/- as due without furnishing any amount of rental charges and carrying cost etc. Under the circumstances, the petitioner approach the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Paschim Mednapore pointing out the malafides on the part of the opposite party. The District Redressal Forum without taking into consideration the vital aspects of the matter dismissed the petitioner's complaint by their judgment and order dated 14th October 2009.
(3.) THEREAFTER, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissioner, West Bengal. That after hearing the parties the State Commission by its order dated 29th March, 2009 has been pleased to dismiss the petitioner's appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal by the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application under article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds that the State Commission has committed serious jurisdictional error by not considering the petitioner's prayer in entertaining additional evidence. Further, the learned State Commission has failed to assign any reason in favour of its decision by dismissing the petitioner's appeal.;