J U D G M E N T:-
This is an order for petition filed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant Triveni Mahto S/o Kailash Mahto, Vill Koramba P.S Rajrappa, Dist Ramgarh against the opposite party Shri Girish Chand Agarwal S/o Lt. Shatrughan Prasad, at and P.S Gola Dist Ramgarh and The Branch Manager Jharkhand Gramin Bank Main Road Gola Branch for grant of value of 613 bags of potato worth Rs- 300000/-damages of Rs- 60000/- cost for mental agony Rs- 20000/- and litigation cost of Rs- 5000/- with interest upon the same 12% from the date of deposit till the realization.
2. The complainant contended in the complaint petition that the complainant is a farmer and fully depends upon agriculture of potato for his livelihood and the opposite party no-2 floated a programme of financial help to farmer in the filed of potatoes agriculture. It is contended that the opposite party no-1 is the owner of M/S Gola Cold Storage Pvt Ltd which was earlier know as M/s Harihar Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. It is contended that in the year 2005 the complainant cultivated more than 200 quintals of potatoes and the complainant converted is in to 370 bags X 50 Kgs and kept those in cold storage of opposite party no-1 in the month of 2005 and the potato was kept in the cold storage of the opposite party no-1 in presence of opposite party no- 2 and the potatoes were pledged in favour of opposite party no- 2 and loan for the same was sanctioned Rs- 98000/- as a term loan. It is further contended that the opposite party no- 1 and 2 took guarantee of said potato and the opposite parties assured that the cold storage covered with damage theft and fire insurance and in case of any damage the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable for the same. Further it is contended that in the month of October 2008, the cold storage was closed because the opposite party no-1 was implicated in electricity theft case vide Gola P.S case no- 85/10 and the opposite party no- 1 did not provided substituted power service to the protect said potato. The complainant contended that the opposite parties negligently and intentionally damage the potato due to which the complainant sustained heavy losses. It is contended that on protest by the complainant a meeting was held in the month of October 2009 when the opposite parties promised to compensate but when nothing was paid the complainant sustained as loss and suffering in cultivation also further it is contended that the opposite party no- 2 sent notice to return the amount of Rs- 108037/- which was not binding on the complainant that the loan was sanctioned only after the pledge of the potato. The complainant contended that the work of the opposite parties is of great deficiency in their service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claims.
3. The consumer complaint case filed on 12/11/11 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hazaribagh and after creation of Consumer Forum at Ramgarh the case record received on transfer on 18/12/15
4. Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hazaribagh the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement. The opposite party no-1 filed his written statement on 06/06/2012 and the opposite party no- 2 filed the written statement on 12/11/2012
5. The opposite party no-1 his written statement has contended that the complaint case as filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and has no locus standi to present the complaint petition and the complainant is a trader in potato and his dealing with the opposite party is the part of trade. According to the opposite party no-1 the complaint petition is hit and barred under territorial jurisdiction since the cold storage and the opposite parties resident of District Ramgarh and the cause of action arose only within Ramgarh District. The opposite party no-1 contended that the charges for such deposit in the cold storage is Rs- 40.50 per packet beside labour charges and as per the terms of agreement the owner/Agent of the goods deposited has to lift his articles on payment charges before 31st October and the owner of the cold storage does not take responsibility of the goods not lifted up to 31st October as also for the goods outside cold storage. It is contended that the depositor never turned to take delivery of their packet as during the relevant period the rate of potato had fallen down to the extent that it could not fetch the charges of the cold storage and so they considered leaving the goods abandoned in the cold storage itself and the Bank did not consider to left or attach the potatoes because of the fall In prices. The opposite party no- 1 contended that it is not correct to say that the opposite party no- 1 closed the cold storage in the year 2008 and 2009 when the complainant has claimed that he deposited the potatoes in 2008. The opposite party no-1 denied the statement made in para 5 of the complaint and has contended that the complainant is not a consumer but a trader and also contended that during the period the rate of potatoes fallen down considerably to Rs- 20/- per packet and the charges payable by the complainant was higher then the price of left out packets and hence the complainant considered leaving the packets undelivered more profitable than to make payment of the charges of the cold storage and the labour payment have also not been made by him. Further the opposite party no- 1 contended that the opposite party is entitled to by way of storage charges and dues of labourers and throwing charges from the complainant which the complaint has not paid. The opposite party no-1 denied the contentions made by the complainant and has prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
6. The opposite party no-2 has filed separate written statement and has admitted some of the paragraph and has denied the other and has denied all the allegations leveled against the opposite party no-2 in the complaint petition.
7. The complainant and the opposite party no- 1 have filed their evidence on affidavit before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hazaribagh. The complainant filed his statement on 05/07/13 and the opposite party no-1 filed his statement on 18/09/13 the parties also filed their questioner and reply respectably.
8. After the case record received on transfer the complainant and the opposite party no-1 filed some documents before this Forum which have been marked as Ext- 1 letter written in the signature of the complainant. Ext-2 is the letter given by the bank Manager. Ext-3 is the letter given by the complainant to the Branch Manager. Ext 4 to 4/5 (4 series) are the receipt issued by the cold storage in the name of the complainant. Ext- 4 series received from the Bank the opposite party no-2.
9. On the other hand the opposite party no-1 filed documents which are Ext-A and A/1 the letter written by the complainant in his trader’s pad to the Manager of the opposite party no-1 Ext-B the receipt showing purchase of generator. Ext-C the hypothecation agreement. Ext-D the letter issued by the complainant favour of the opposite party no-2 (the Bank) Ext-E Advocate notice to the complainant. Ext F is the agreement executed between Triveni Mahto and the Manager of Gola Cold Storage Shri V.K Mishra.
10. In this case the Learned Advocate behalf of the complainant and the Learned Advocate behalf of the opposite party no-1 submitted orally in support of their respective claim. In this case it is the admitted facts of the parties that the complainant deposited 613 packet of potatoes in different dates as per exhibits 20/03/08, 16/03/08, 14/03/08, 17/03/08, 14/03/08 and 25/03/08 in the cold storage of the opposite party no-1 and the Cold Storage issued the receipt Ext 4 to 4/5.
11. Considering the complaint petition the written statement on behalf of the opposite parties the statement of the complainant filed on affidavit and the statement filed by the opposite party no-1 and the questioner and the answers and the oral submission made on behalf of the complainant and the opposite party the main points for determination in this case arose are :-
1. -Whether the complainant is a farmer or trader and he kept the potatoes for commercial purpose in the Cold Storage? |
2. - Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief or reliefs? |
3.-Whether the opposite party was guilty for deficiency in service by not performing his duties ? |
|
FINDINGS Point-no-1 Opposite party no- 1 has filed Ext-A and A/1 and the Learned Advocate of the opposite party submitted that the complainant is not a Consumer as definited in the Consumer Protection Act and submitted that the complainant who is a trader has kept huge quantities of potatoes in cold storage to gain profit Learned Advocate also submitted that there are unexplained difference in the claim of the complainant in statement of the complaint filed in affidavit and the complaint petition. Learned Advocate submitted that in his evidence the complainant has stated that he kept 370 bags of potatoes in the Cold Storage but in relief sought portion of the petition the complainant has claimed for 613 bags this shows that the complainant himself is not sure as to how much quantity of potatoes the complainant has kept in the cold storage. Learned Advocate submitted whether 370 bags of 613 bags were kept in the Cold Storage is a matter of dispute and under that the complainant cannot get any relief. Learned Advocate submitted it is admitted fact that the complainant is a potato Trader which is evident from pad of Ext-A or A/1 and since the complainant is a Trader he cannot be considered as consumer and hence not entitled to get any relief. 12. On the other hand the learned Advocate on behalf of the complainant submitted that the complainant is a simple big farmer and not a trader and he is entitle to every relief. 13. From the documentary evidences it is fact the complainant wrote letter to the Branch Manager of the Cold Storage the opposite party no- 1 (Ext A and A/1) which indicates that the complainant is a potato trader and he wrote the manager to sell the potato and realize the charges of the Cold Storage. Accordingly it is admitted that the complainant acted for commercial proposes by keeping the potatoes in Cold Storage of the opposite party no-1. It is admitted position of the Law that a person who enters in to commercial transaction with opposite party is not consumer. This point is decided accordingly. Point no- II and III As per discussion of point no- I it is evident that the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party is not that of a consumer rather the dealing of the complainant and opposite party are a matter related to commercial purpose which does not come under the purview of the scope of the Consumer Disputes Act and accordingly the matter involved in this case is not a Consumer Disputes and hence there is no need to decide the matter whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in his services. Accordingly In the result the Forum hold that the present case of the complainant does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act section 2 (1) (d) and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claims. And The case filed by the complainant is dismissed but without any cost. Supply free copy of this order to the complainant and the opposite parties. |
