Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,92,000/- with the cost of litigation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had kept the potato in cold storage namely Maa Durga Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party) which was accepted by managing director of the said cold storage vide roll no. 53, party no, 26 dated 19.09.2006 for which the complainant had paid Rs. 1,62,078/- out of Rs. 2,62,078/-. Thus, Rs. 1,00,000/- remained due as will appear from annexure – 1.
The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party had not returned the money or potato for value of Rs. 92,000/-. It has been further asserted that complainant is a Mukhiya of Khanpur Panchayat and he was storing his potato in that cold storage for long time but he has not faced such circumstances. The complainant has also stated that amount of Rs. 92,000/- has been blocked by opposite party due to which the complainant had put to loss of Rs. 2,92,000/-.
On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant had kept the potato in Maa Durga Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vide roll no. 53, party no. 26 for which Rs. 2,62,078/- had to be paid to him but it is false to say that only Rs. 1,62,078/- was paid to him rather the fact is that Rs. 63,078/- in cash and Rs. 99,000/- through cheque of Allahabad Bank, Patna Branch was paid to the complainant by Dinesh Kumar one of the director of the said Cold Storage on 19.09.2006 and the rest of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash was paid to the complainant by the manager Sri Binod Kumar of the said Cold Storage on the same date from the cash box by making its proper entry in the cash book the photocopy of which has been annexed as annexure – A.
It is also stated by opposite party that after receipt of amount of Rs. 2,62,078/- the Bijay Singh made his signature thereof on payment slip on the same day which is apparent from the payment slip of the payment register as well as cash book and agreement book as will appear from annexure – B and C.
It has been further stated that complainant has filed false case with malafide intentionwith a view to extort the money from opposite party.
It has been further stated that it is the complainant who has not paid the other charges.
It further transpires that this case was earlier heard by this forum which was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2008 for the reason mentioned in the aforementioned order which is in record of this case.
It further transpires that against the order of this forum dated 08.01.2008 referred above an appeal was filed by this complainant in the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute redressal Commission, Patna being first appeal no. 257/08 ( Bijay Singh Vrs. Maa Durga Cold storage Pvt. Ltd.) and the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna vide order dated 16.05.2011 passed the following direction, “The Exparte order is, true, set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum for deciding the matter afresh. In case, either of the parties are found reluctant then the matter should be closed and it should be decided on merit on material available on the record preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.” As per direction of the Hon’ble Commission this case has been heard.
On behalf of complainant a supplementary affidavit has been filed on 25.08.2011 stating therein that as per mode of payment the original copy of the payment receipt remains with the customer, the same is taken by the cold storage only after making full payment and not before that. In this case the original receipt remains with the complainant signifying non- payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the opposite party.
It has been further asserted that out of total amount of Rs. 2,62,078/- only Rs. 63,078/- in cash and Rs. 99,000/- through cheque was paid to the complainant on 19.09.2006 by Dinesh Kumar who is son of the opposite party and the facts regarding making above payment duly noted in the explicit terms on the payment receipt dated 19.09.2006 vide annexure – 1. Hence, from bare perusal of the payment receipt referred above it is crystal clear that before making entire payment signature of the complainant for the proof of receiving entire amount had been taken on receipt by opposite party.
It has been further asserted that whatever amount the opposite party wishes to enter in his cash book cannot be treated as proof of evidence.
It has been also stated that as the original receipt remains with the complainant, hence it is clear proof of the fact that the complainant has kept the original receipt with himself due to non- payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
In reply to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit it is stated that the complainant kept huge quantity of potato in Maa Durga Cold Storage not for self consumption but for the purpose of resale.
It has been stated that the complainant received altogether Rs. 2,62,078/- including Rs. 99,000/- through cheque but subsequently he made the interruption in the payment slip.
The complainant has also filed a rejoinder repeating the same fact again and again and a reply to rejoinder has also been filed by opposite party repeating the same fact again and again.
Written argument has also been filed on behalf of both the parties which have been perused by us carefully.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail.
It is made clear that except supplementary affidavit and its reply no any specific evidence has been filed by any party of this complaint petition.
The complainant has asserted that as opposite party has not paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to him hence the original bill remain with him because it is custom and law that after payment of all the due the original bill is taken by manager of the Cold Storage. The opposite party has denied all the allegation and stated that he had paid all the amount to the complainant but the complainant has made interruption in the original bill to extort money from opposite party. This has been done by the complainant with malafide intention.
We have no any agency to prove interpolation in the original bill. This forum in its earlier order dated 08.01.2008 has dismissed this complaint after discussing entire facts.
It goes without saying that District Consumer Forum has no right or jurisdiction to decide disputed fact.
For the reason stated above we find and hold that complainant has failed to conclusively prove deficiency on the part of opposite party.
Thus, this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member Member(F) President
