Tripura

West Tripura

CC/12/54

Md. Muslem Mia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director Department of Agriculture. And Other. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P.K. Debnath.

15 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 54 of 2012

Md. Muslem Miah,
S/o- Lt. Hazi Amber Ali Bhuiya,
Vill- Rangamatia, 
P.S.- Sonamura,
District- Sipahijala.            ............Complainant.

         __________VERSUS_________

1(A) The State of Tripura
Represented by the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tripura,Agartala.

1. Director,
Department of Agriculture,
Government of Tripura,
Agartala.

2. Deputy Director,
Department of Agriculture,
Govt. of Tripura,
Agartala.

3. Superintendent of Agriculture,
Sonamura,
District- Sipahijala.

4. In-charge,
Melagarh Cold Storage,
Melagarh,
District- Sipahijala.            .......Opposite parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Sri P.K. Debnath,
                  Advocate. 
                           
For the O.Ps             : Sri Debalay Bhattacharya,
                  Advocate. 
                  

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 15.05.15

J U D G M E N T

        Received back the case record on remand from the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura along with a copy of judgment dated 02.04.14 passed in appeal No.F.A.- 49/2013 and Revision case No- R.A-07/2014 whereby the order dated 18.12.12 and the Judgment dated 26.08.13 passed by this Forum have been set aside with a direction to try the case afresh after giving opportunity to the complainant to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC for addition of party, giving scope to the newly added O.P. to file written objection providing opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence and also taking into consideration of the evidence already on record. 
2.        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Md. Muslem Miah of Rangamatia, P.S- Sonamura District- Sipahijala against the O.P.s, namely The State of Tripura, represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala and 4 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
3.        The case of the complainant as gathered from the record is that he being a Kishan Credit Card holder used to maintain his livelihood by producing different kinds of vegetable in his agricultural land situated at Rangamatia, Sonamura. He took a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from UBI, Sonamura Branch for the purpose of producing tomatoes. In the month of April, 2011 he stored un-ripped tomatoes weighing 3200 kg at Melaghar Cold storage for 21 days after paying necessary charges. Before expiry of the stipulated period he was instructed by the in-charge of the cold storage to take delivery of the tomatoes. At the time of taking delivery it was found that the  tomatoes valued Rs.35,000/- got damaged. In the first part of 2012, the representative of the O.Ps visited their village and told him that the Melagarh cold storage had been converted to Multi Cold Storage Centre and well equipped with necessary machineries. Being allured by the advertisement of the representative of the O.Ps he again stored 18300 kg of tomatoes during the period from 27.03.12 to 14.04.12 at Melagarh cold storage in good condition. For that matter he paid necessary charges and money receipts were also issued by the incharge of the cold storage. On 20.04.12 when he visited the cold storage to take delivery of the tomatoes he was greatly surprised to see that out of 18300 kg of tomatoes, 12000 kg got badly damaged. At the relevant time the whole sale market price of the tomato was Rs.22/- per kg. As a result, he sustained financial loss to the tune of Rs.2,64,000/- towards damage of tomatoes. It is alleged that due to faulty management of the cold storage by the O.Ps, the tomatoes stored at the cold storage got damaged. On 05.05.12 and 07.05.12 he lodged two complaints with the Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Agricultural Department seeking redress for damage of his 12000 kg of tomatoes at the cold storage. But he received no response from their end. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

4.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps No.1, 2 3 and 4 by filing joint written objection denying all the averments made by the complainant. Further that, the complainant stored tomatoes weighing 18300 kg at the cold storage on different dates from 26.03.12 to 14.04.12 with a condition to take delivery of the same before 21 days. He took delivery of 17500 kg of tomatoes time to time from 17.04.12 to 28.04.12 and remaining 800 kg on 03.05.12. He took delivery of the tomatoes with his full satisfaction. At the time of taking delivery of the tomatoes he never raised any question as to the damage of 12000 kg of tomatoes. He took the plea of damage of tomatoes after a long delay of taking delivery of tomatoes in order to get compensation. It is denied that the tomatoes kept by the complainant in the cold storage were damaged due to faulty management of the cold storage by the O.Ps.
5.        Inspite of giving sufficient time to the newly added O.P., the State of Tripura represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, they failed to file written objection.

6.        In support of the claim, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and 2 others, namely Farid Miah and Harun Miah as P.W. 2 and 3 respectively and has proved and exhibited 50 sheets of papers filed on 28.06.12 with Firisti as Exhibit -1 Series and 11 sheets of papers filed on 06.05.13with Firisti as Exhibit- 2 Series including the demand notice dated 02.05.14 issued by UBI, Sonamura Branch as Exhibit-3.

7.        On the other hand, one Sri Subir Bhowmik, Executive Engineer, Agricultural Department, Govt. of Tripura has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 as a witness of the O.P. side and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit- A- Photocopy of Generator Log sheet for 2011-12;
    Exhibit B- Tomato Register for the year 2012;
    Exhibit C- Daily Plant Room Log Sheet;
    Exhibit D- Specimen form of Weight receipt, 
    Exhibit E- Weight receipts for the period from 30.03.11 to  14.04.12 and
    Exhibit F- Weight receipts for the period from 26.03.12 to 14.04.12.  
                FINDINGS:
8.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
    (i) Whether the complainant stored 18300 kg of tomatoes during the period from 26.03.12 to 14.04.12 at Melagarh cold storage and whether out of 18300 kg of tomatoes 12000 kg of tomatoes got damaged due to faulty management of the cold storage by the O.Ps;
    (ii) Whether the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service.
        
9.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record, evidence adduced by the parties and the memorandum of written argument filed by the complainant meticulously.

10.        It is the case of the complainant that he had stored 18300 kg of tomatoes from 26.03.12 to 14.04.12 at Melagarh cold storage on condition to take delivery of the same before 21 days. For that matter he paid requisite charges. It is alleged that at the time of taking delivery of the tomatoes before the stipulated period he was surprised to notice that out of 18300 kg of tomatoes 12000 kg of tomatoes were damaged and they were not fit for human consumption. At the relevant time the whole sale market price of tomato was Rs.22/- per kg and thus he sustained loss of Rs.2,64,000/- towards damege of 12000 kg of tomatoes. It is the further allegation of the complainant that he had to face similar consequence in the year 2011 when he suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.35000/- for similar reason by storing tomatoes at the same cold storage. According to the complainant, the tomatoes stored at the cold storage got damaged due to faulty method adopted by the O.Ps for management of the cold storage.

11.        Since there is no document on record to suggest that the complainant had stored any quantities of tomato at Melaghar cold storage in the year 2011, we are not  inclined to make any discussion on this issue. We want to restrain our discussion mainly on the issue on whether the complainant had stored 18300 kg of tomatoes at Melagarh cold storage during the period from 26.03.12 to 14.04.12 and whether out of 18300 kg  of tomatoes 12000 kg of tomatoes got damaged due to faulty management of the cold storage by its authority.

12.        It is clear from the documents on record such as Weight receipts (Exhibit-2 Series) and Tomato Register for the year 2012(Exhibit-B) that the complainant had stored 18300 kg of tomatoes at Melaghar cold storage during the period from 26.03.12 to 14.04.12. There is no dispute on the fact that as per terms and conditions for Operation of Agri. Departmental Cold Storage at Melaghar, the vegetable stored at the cold storage was required to take back before 21 days. 

13.        The complainant in his evidence as P.W. 1 has stated that due to faulty management of the cold storage by its authority 1200 kg of tomatoes were damaged. This part of evidence of the complainant has received support from the evidence of P.W. 2 Farid Miah and P.W. 3 Harun Miah, who happened to be the engaged labourers of the complainant. There is no material on record to show how the quantum of damage of tomatoes was assessed by the complainant. On perusal of the Tomato Receipt Register for the year 2012 (Exhibit-B) it is found that the complainant took delivery of 17500 kg of tomatoes between  17.04.12 and 28.04.12 and remaining 800 kg on 03.05.12 from the cold storage with full satisfaction. At that point of time he did not raise any objection regarding damage of 12000 kg of tomatoes as alleged. If the complainant thought that the tomatoes were damaged due to faulty management of the cold storage by its authority, he could have taken delivery of the tomatoes under serious objection. But nothing of this sort was done. Surprisingly, the complainant lodged complaint with the O.P. No.1, Director of Agriculture as to the damage of 12000 kg of tomatoes for the first time on 05.05.12 after lapse of about 17 days from the date of taking delivery of the first lot of tomatoes on 17.04.12. There is no explanation from the complainant for causing  inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Naturally it casts doubt as to the genuinity of the allegation made by the complainant.

14.        We have also gone through the terms and conditions for Operation of Agri Departmental Cold Storage at Melaghar as referred by the learned counsel for the O.P. side. As per clause 14 of the terms and conditions, the cold storage authority shall not be held responsible for any loss or damage of potatoes/ seeds/fruits/ vegetable etc. kept in the cold storage as per clause No-4 and 5.
        Clause- 5 stipulates that ''goods will be received at owner's risk.'' So, clause-14 of the terms and conditions clearly demonstrates that the cold storage authority will not be responsible for any loss or damage of vegetable kept in the cold storage.

15.        Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the cold storage authority was acting as a bailee with whom goods were entrusted in safe custody and it was expected of him to keep the goods in care and caution as they were his own. Further that, the terms and conditions for Operation of Cold Storage are one sided being designed by the O.Ps to deprive the farmers, who keep their vegetable at the cold storage, from getting redress against the wrong doers. 

16.        There is no denial of the fact that the complainant put  his signature in the agreement accepting all the terms and conditions for Operation of the Cold Storage. Once the agreement is signed by the complainant it becomes contractual agreement under the Indian Contract Act which has to be honoured by both the parties. This Forum has no power to sit in judgment as to the validity of the terms of agreement. 

17.        For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to make out a case that the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service in any manner.
18.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to costs.        
19.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.