BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.49/2013 against C.C.No.271/2009, Dist. Forum, Guntur.
Between:
Managing Director The,
M/s. Dhanalakshmi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.,
Dhanalakshminagar, Opp. to Mirch Yard,
Guntur- 004. … Appellant/
Opp.pary
And
Kurukuntla Venkateswarlu,
S/o. late Chengaiah,
R/o. Gangireddipalem,
Kaligiri Mandal,
Kavali Taluk,
Nellore Dist. - 524 001. … Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. B.Bhaskar Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. C.R.Vasantha Kumar.
QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
The appeal is directed against the order dt.18.9.2012 of the Dist. Consumer Forum, Guntur made in C.C.No.271/2009 filed by the respondent/complainant, seeking direction to the appellant/opp.party, to return 450 bags of Mirchi to the complainant or to pay to the complainant Rs.10 lakhs being the value of 450 bags of Mirch, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
The case of the respondent/complainant as per the complaint is that he kept 450 bags of Mirch worth of Rs.10 lakhs in the cold storage of the appellant/opp.party. The appellant/opp.party executed bonds, on different dates, in favour of the respondent/complainant. The appellant/opp.party sold the above said 450 Mirch bags to third parties and did not pay the value to the respondent/complainant. When the respondent/complainant demanded to return the 450 bags of mirch or to pay the value of goods, the appellant/opp.party neither returned the 450 bags of Mirch nor paid the value of the Mirch. On the other hand, the appellant/opp.party behaved high handedly.
The further case of the respondent/complainant is that he hired the services of the appellant/opp.party by paying fee for selling for better price. The above conduct of the appellant/opp.party, amounted to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint , the appellant/opp.party filed written version contending that M/s.Udayalakshmi Chillies Traders, General Merchants and Commission Agents used to get chillies from farmers and in turn used to sell chilli stocks to the prospective purchaser through Agricultural Market Committee. The respondent/complainant supplied about 670 tickies of chillies to M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies, authorising them to sell their stocks in regular course of business. The respondent/complainant borrowed Rs.2,60,000/- on 17.5.2008 and Rs.2,10,000/- on 31.07.2008 from M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chilles by executing promissory notes. The respondent has mutual running katha with M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies . M/s. Udaya Laksmi Chillies and other similar firms used to keep their chilly stocks with the appellant/opposite party. The appellant/opp.party received chillies of the respondent/complainant through M/s.Udaya LakshmiChillies and accordingly bonds were issued. Farmers used to keep the bonds with bank to get loan from the bank. The respondent/complainant through M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies availed loan facility from M/s.City Union Bank, Guntur by depositing the bonds issued by the appellant/opp.party . As the prices of the chillies were coming down day by day, the respondent/complainant in order to discharge debts due to M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies and City Union Bank, Guntur, authorised M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies to dispose of his stock and executed an order form. In view of the order form issued by the respondent/complainant on 12.02.2008, M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies sold 375 tickies of chillies in the Agricultural Market Committee on 04.02.2009, 05.02.2009 and 12.02.2009. The remaining 295 tickies of chillies stocks belonging to the respondent/complainant are still in the custody of the appellant/opp.party.
After deducting the commission, M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies discharged the debt due to M/s. City Union Bank, Guntur, on behalf of the respondent/complainant. The remaining amount was adjusted as per the pronotes executed by the respondent/complainant on 17.05.2008 and 31.07.2008. The respondent/complainant is still due in a sum of Rs.65,000/- as on 12.02.2009. The respondent/complainant made a representation to the Collector, Guntur District and on that, the SHO, Lalapet ( L & O ) P.S. enquired into the matter. In that process, the bonds, the loan amount and counterfoil were submitted to the said SHO. The respondent/complainant tactfully took away 7 bonds from the appellant/opp.party by suppressing the entire transaction and filed this case.
It is the further case of the appellant/opp.party that M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies filed a suit in O.S.No.1083/2009 against the respondent/complainant herein before the 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of Rs.65,000/-. Thus the appellant/opp.party did not commit any deficiency in service. The respondent/complainant did not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. Rest of the contra allegations mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented to suite his case. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed .
Previously, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part on 13.07.2011 , as mentioned infra :
1.The opp.party is directed to return 100 bags of chillies belonging to the complainant or in the alternative to pay value of those 100 bags of chillies as on 24-06-09( as per the rates of Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur) together with interest at 12% p.a. from 24-06-09.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,000/- ( Rupees Seven thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs.
3. The opposite party is entitled to collect its charges from the complainant for his 450 bags of chillies.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order “
Aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein preferred F.A.No.775/2011 before this Commission and this Commission on 12.03.2012 allowed the appeal and remitted the case for de-nova enquiry.While remitting the matter, this Commission held the following:
“ In any view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent has to be given notice in regard to the judgement and decree sought to be received as additional evidence and it has to be given opportunity to put forth its contention as regard the judgement and Decree in the suit filed by it before the Civil Court”.
After remand, during de-novo enquiry, the respondent/complainant filed Exs.A1 to A16 and the appellant/opposite party filed Exs.B1 to B20.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material placed on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the respondent/complainant is entitled to return of 450 bags of chillies or its value as on 24.06.2009 and that the appellant committed deficiency in service for not furnishing the details of commodity belonging to the respondent sold by it. Consequently, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part, directing the appellant/opp.party to return to the respondent/complainant 405 bags of red chillies and 45 ‘thalu’ bags of chillies belonging to the complainant or in the alternative, value of those bags of chillies as on 24.06.2009 ( as per the rates of Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur), together with interest at 12% p.a. from24.06.2009 till payment and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the respondent/complainant. The District Forum further ordered that the appellant/opp.party is entitled to collect its charges from the respondent/complainant for its 450 bags of chillies till 24.06.2009.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred the above appeal urging that the District Forum failed to consider and appreciate that new facts are elicited after remand before the District Forum. Therefore, the District Forum ought to have confirmed the order dt.13.06.2011 made in above C.C.No.271/2009. That the District Forum failed to consider that no O.S.No.1083/2009 is only money recovery suit for the balance amount due from the defendant therein, who is the complainant herein under the katha maintained by the plaintiff therein and that the judgement and decree made in the said suit is not binding on the District Forum in C.C.No.271/2009. That the District Forum having considered that 350 bags of chillies were sold under authorisation given by the complainant and only 100 bags are with the appellant, erred in ordering to return 405 bags of red chillies and 45 bags of Talu bags of chillies or its value. The appellant finally prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is not in dispute that Exs.A1 to A7 bonds were issued by the appellant/opposite party in favour of the respondent/complainant during 11.4.2008 -23.5.2008. The District Forum relying on the contents of Exs.A1 to A7 found that the respondent/complainant kept his stock in the cold storage of the appellant/opp.party through M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies . The said finding of the District Forum has become final, as the respondent/complainant did not question the finding by way of appeal. From Exs.A1 to A7 it can be inferred that the respondent/complainant kept 405 bags of red chillies and 45 bags of ‘Thalu’ chillies with the appellant/opp.party during 11.4.2008-23.5.2008 through M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies. Infact, the appellant/opp.party at para 5 of its written version, mentioned that the complainant gave authorisation to M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies for disposal of 670 tickies. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the respondent/complainant kept 450 bags of chillies in the cold storage of the appellant/opp.party.
It is an admitted fact that M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies Traders filed the suit O.S.No.1083/79 against the respondent/complainant herein before the 1stAddl.Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for recovery of sum of Rs.70,030/- with costs and subsequent interest. The complainant herein who is defendent in the said suit denied the material averments of the plaint and contended that he has repaid the entire amount, but the plaintiff did not return the promissory note. On merits the said suit was dismissed as evident from Ex.A10 the copy of the decree and Ex.A11 the copy of the judgement in the said suit and the same became final as no appeal has been preferred questioning the said judgement.
The appellant/opp.party relied on Ex.B2 authorisation dt.12.12.2008 said to have been issued by the complainant in favour of M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies Traders. The respondent/complainant denied that he gave Ex.B2 authorisation in favour of M/s. Udaya Lakshmi Chillies Traders . Infact, the said authorisation was disbelieved by the Civil Court i.e. Jr.Civil Judge, Guntur after full-fledged trial as per para 29 of its judgement ( Ex.A11) . Undoubtedly, the decree and judgement in O.S.No.1083/2009 is binding on the District Forum, as it became final. Under these circumstances, the District Forum rightly observed that it is not necessary for it once again to consider the truth or otherwise of Ex.A8 (=Ex.B2) authorisation. The appellant/opp.party failed to prove that the respondent/complainant gave authorisation to M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies Traders to sell chilly bags. In view of the finding of the Civil Court in O.S.No.1083/09, Exs.B13 to B20 filed by the appellant/opp.party, subsequent to remand, are of no help to the appellant/opp.party. As rightly held by the District Forum, the transactions between M/s.Udaya Lakshmi Chillies Traders (partnership firm) and the respondent/complainant, even if true, do not bind the transactions between the respondent/complainant and the appellant/opp.party, as both are the different legal entities. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant/opp.party is liable to return 450 bags of chillies.
For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order by the District Forum, to interfere with it. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum. The appellant/opp.party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the respondent/complainant towards the costs of this appeal.
MEMBER
MEMBR
Pm* Dt.02.06.2014
