BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 214 of 2015.                                                                        

                                                         Date of Institution         :    02.12.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    30.11.2016.

Pala Singh son of Sh. Malkit Singh, resident of village Bharoliawali, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Haryana Cold Store through its Prop./ Partner Manish Kumar son of Sh. Sham Lal Mehta, Subji Mandi Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                              ...…Opposite party.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.      

                 SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………                 MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. K.K. Sukhija, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant stored the potatoes in the opposite party’s cold store detailed as 158 bags on 26.3.2015, another 158 bags on 28.3.2015, 120 bags on 3.4.2015, 75 bags on 4.4.2015 i.e. in all 511 bags and opposite party received Rs.56,210/- as storing charges up to October, 2015. In token of deposit of potatoes, opposite party issued receipts No.97, 196, 125 and 188 respectively in the name of complainant and his father Malkit Singh. The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party is that when he approached to the op for taking back the potatoes, then he found that all the potatoes bags were damaged due to the negligence of the opposite party. It is further alleged that on account of damage of potatoes, complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,55,500/- as price of the potatoes (Rs.10/- per Kg of 511 bags i.e. 50 Kg. per bag), Rs.56,210/- as charges paid by complainant to the opposite party and Rs.6,000/- as fair charges. Besides it, complainant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and took preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, suppression of material facts and that answering op has not been properly sued as Manish Kumar is neither a partner nor proprietor of Haryana Cold Store. Rather Sh. Sham Sunder Mehta is the sole proprietor of Haryana Cold Store. As per the version of the opposite party on merits, complainant stored 158 bags of potatoes on 26.3.2015, another 158 bags on 28.3.2015, 120 bags on 3.4.2015, and 75 bags on 4.4.2015 i.e. total 511 bags. Besides it, complainant also stored 80 bags of potatoes with the op in the name of Malkiat Singh vide receipt No.215 dated 6.4.2015 and 66 bags in his name on 13.10.2015 vide receipt No.198 and these two transactions had not been shown by the complainant in the complaint. First plea has been taken by the opposite party that complainant and his father Malkiat Singh and one another Malkiat Singh and Angrej Singh all of village Bharolianwali purchased the potatoes from the market for the business purpose and for that reason potatoes were stored in the names of different persons. Opposite party also denied receipt of Rs.56210/- as alleged by complainant. It is further replied that receipts issued by the opposite party are for storing of potatoes. In fact, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- only on 28.7.2015 vide gate pass No.241 on which date the complainant took 40 bags of potatoes from the opposite party and rest of the storing charges are due towards the complainant. The complainant or his authorized persons had been collecting the stored potatoes from the opposite party on different dates and then sold the same in the market. In this respect, various gate passes bearing the signatures of persons who had collected the potatoes have been issued. On 8.10.2015 also, complainant himself also collected 20 bags of potatoes. At the time of collecting the potatoes, neither the complainant nor his representative raised any objection regarding the damaged condition of the potatoes rather it was endorsed on every gate pass that the recipient was satisfied with the goods received by him. It is further replied that all the stored potatoes have already been received by the complainant by himself or through his representative and present complaint is an afterthought in order to avoid the payment of storing charges due against him.

3.                By way of evidence, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and various receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. Whereas, opposite party produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 (receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 are the photocopies of same receipts), photostat copies of various gate passes Ex.R7 to Ex.R23.

4.                We have heard complainant and learned counsel for opposite party and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                The storing of potatoes by the complainant through various receipts is an admitted fact and deposit of potatoes has not been denied by the opposite party. Now coming to the point whether the stored potatoes had been damaged as alleged by the complainant except the affidavit of complainant there is no evidence on the file to prove this fact. In counter blast, the plea of complainant, opposite party has also produced his affidavit. As such there are counter affidavits of both the parties. Besides it, there are various gate passes Ex.R7 to Ex.R23 show that complainant received back more than the alleged deposited bags of the potatoes from the opposite party’s store with his satisfaction. In his affidavit Ex.C1, complainant has not denied any gate pass as claimed by the opposite party in his written version.  Moreover, plea of the opposite party that complainant stored the potatoes for commercial purpose cannot be disbelieved specially when complainant no where denied this fact. The complainant has not given any purpose of storing of potatoes in such a huge quantity which supports the plea of the opposite party i.e. storing of potatoes for commercial purpose.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove his case and rather opposite party proved his version through reliable and cogent evidence. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated: 30.11.2016.                                     Member.    District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.