Date of filing – 30.10.2013
Date of Hearing – 03.05.2017
Challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 71/2012. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint initiated by the Respondent nos. 1 to 8 under Section 12 of the Act with the directions upon the opposite party/appellant to pay Rs.2,77,800/- to the respondents towards the cost of 46.300 Kg of potatoes @ Rs.6 per Kg., Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost etc.
The Respondent nos. 1 to 8 herein being Complainants lodged the complaint asserting that they kept/stored potatoes as described in the schedule of the petition of complaint in the cold storage of the opposite party for the period of March, 2011 to November, 2011 on the basis of their individual bond for future benefit to earn their source of livelihood. The complainants as per prevailing system promised to pay the cold storage charges to the OP at the time of delivery of the potatoes. The complainants went to take delivery of the potatoes in the first week of December, 2011and on that time, the OP gave assurance of delivery later. Thereafter, in the 2nd week of December, 2011 again one assurance was given to find out the potatoes soon. Meanwhile, the Additional District Magistrate, Burdwan issued an order to distribute the potatoes in primary and upper primary schools for mid-day meal purpose on the basis of guidelines mentioned therein. Taking advantage of the said order, the opposite party neither delivered the potatoes nor paid the cost of the potatoes at the market rate prevailed at that time. The complainant alleged that due to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party, they have suffered huge financial loss amounting to Rs.2,77,800/- towards the cost of 46,300 Kgs. potatoes @ Rs.6/- per Kg. Hence, the respondents approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for refund of the said amount, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
The appellant being opposite party by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainants stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The specific case of the OP was that the complainants kept 107 packets of potatoes, the delivery of the same were to be taken latest by 14.11.2011 upon payment of rent of Rs.53.75 paisa per packet of potatoes. The OP has stated that since the complainants did not take the delivery of the potatoes within time, after obtaining permission from the Additional Director of Agricultural Marketing and after intimating the local Sultanpur Gram Panchayat, they obtained permission of auction sale and ultimately on 06.01.2012 put those unclaimed/undelivered stock of potatoes in auction in presence of local traders. The opposite party has submitted that as there was no deficiency on the part of them, the complaint should be dismissed.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions, as indicated above, which prompted the OP to prefer this appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the appellant on the threshold of his submission has urged that in view of the provisions of Section 24 of W.B. Cold Storage (Licensing and Regulation) Act, 1966 read with Rule 10 of the West Bengal Cold Storage (Licensing and Regulation) Rules, 1967 the respondents should have approached the appropriate authority prior to filing complaint before the Ld. District Forum. Section 24 (4) of the said Act provides –
“In case of any dispute between the licensee and the hirer as to the amount of compensation to be paid, the licensing officer shall settled the dispute as expeditiously as possible and shall also make an order determining the amount of compensation payable by the licensee who shall make payment of the compensation to the hirer within two month from the date of the order, whether any claim against insurance of any, is settled or not”.
Ld. Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand has contended that the respondents did not file the complaint before the Ld. District Forum under the Act for compensation only but has filed the same to bring the notice of the Forum as to the deficiency in services on the part of the appellant.
After hearing the Ld. Advocates for the parties, it appears to me that it would be profitable to mention the provisions of Section 3 of the Act which provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In a landmark decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 1043 (State of Karnataka – vs. – Vishwabarathi House Building Co. Op. Society and Ors.) the Hon’ble Apex Court speaking on the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum held that the provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible and the Fora under the C.P. Act have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other Fora/Courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis. Therefore, assuming that there is a provision under the WB Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 which the respondents could avail yet filing of the complaint before the Consumer Forum cannot be a dent to the respondent’s case. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant on the ground of maintainability does not appear to be acceptable.
Admittedly, the respondents kept/stored the potatoes of 46300 Kgs. in the cold storage of the appellant for the period from March, 2011 to November, 2011 on the basis of their individual bond for future benefit sources of livelihood. The materials on record indicate that after expiry of the period, the respondents on several occasions had been to the cold storage of the appellant but the appellant promised to return the same after ascertaining whether the same has been traced out or not. On 27.12.2011 the Additional District Magistrate (LA), Burdwan by a notice bearing No. 825(31)/FS dated 27.12.2011 informed all the local bodies that the potatoes that are lying at nearby cold storage are to be distributed to primary and upper primary schools for mid-day meal purpose on the basis of guidelines mentioned in the said notice. The fact remains that the appellant did not deliver the potatoes of the respondents to any primary or upper primary schools for mid-day meal purpose.
The startling fact is that without serving any notice upon the respondents, the appellant put those 46,300 Kgs. of potatoes in auction which offends the principles of natural justice. Had the potatoes been supplied to the primary or upper primary schools as per notification of the Additional District Magistrate, Burdwan (Food Section), Govt. of West Bengal it would have been otherwise. According to the appellant, the auction was held on 06.01.2012 after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat but it is surprising to note that the appellant even did not obtain any permission from the concerned Additional District magistrate.
The Ld. District Forum has observed – “Non production of any book of account, non-furnishing of any explanation as to what persuaded the OP removed the potatoes for distribution or auction without informing the complainants, will be counted against OP. It is also known to us that later part of November and the first part of December, the price of potatoes goes up generally, because of the gap between the supply and demand and taking the advantage of the same, OP distributed the potatoes .....”. Ld. District Forum has further proceeded to observe – “The documents of auction which have been filed at the time of argument is after thought and prepared for the purpose of this case, otherwise at the time of filing the written version on 19.09.2012, the OP easily could file all those documents including auction papers .......”.
After giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in holding that there was gross deficiency as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. Since the Act of the appellant hits the principle of natural justice, the Ld. District Forum has passed an order to pay Rs.2,77,800/- to respondent nos. 1 to 8 towards the cost of 46,300 Kgs. of potatoes @ Rs.6/- per Kg. Considering the loss and injury suffered by the respondents, an amount of compensation of Rs.12,500/- each totalling Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- appears to me quite justified.
In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. In other words, the reasoned order passed by the Ld. District Forum should not be interfered with.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.8,000/- to be paid by the appellant to respondent nos. 1 to 8 at Rs.1,000/- each.
The Judgement/Final Order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum in DF Case No.71/2012 is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan for information.
