Date of Filing: 04-01-2016 Date of Final Order: 26-04-2016
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.
The brief facts of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Gobinda Nath Roy being a small farmer, cultivates potatoes and it stored in cold storage for getting profitable price by selling it to the market. After cultivation of potatoes (Varity, Desi), the Complainant stored/kept 20 packets (50 Kg. in each packets) seed potatoes in the Madan Mohan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Cooch behar i.e. the O.P. Nos.1 & 2, on the basis bond and at the time of stored, the O.Ps verified the every potato bags and receive it in good condition. Thereafter the O.Ps received advanced money from the Complainant and issued a receipt which itself depicted that the stored product for safe custody for prevention of distress sale and also the O.Ps assured that they will render proper service towards the Complainant.
In the month of October, 2015, the Complainant went to the cold storage of the O.Ps and approached them for taking delivery his stored 20 bags potato by paying the balance rent amount. After receiving this rent amount the staff of the O.Ps namely Shyamal Barman returned 18 bags potato instead of 20 bags, which was mentioned in the storage rent bill issued by Shyamal Barman. After that the Complainant regularly went to the said cold storage of the O.Ps for getting rest 2 bags stored potato. Inspite of repeated requests to the O.Ps intentionally dilly-dallying to the Complainant on the flimsy ground of shortage of staff and sometimes passed over the matter for next month. But consequently the O.Ps did not pay any heed towards the Complainant.
Subsequently, the Complainants came to know that the rest 2 bags potato have missing due to negligent & deficiency on the part of the O.Ps for want of proper attention in the staff of cold storage. The O.Ps promised to the Complainant to return stored product but they did not take any positive steps.
It is pertinent to mention that in the month of September, 2015 to December, 2015 the price of the potato (Seed Potato) was of Rs.35/- per Kg.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant was suffered from mental pain & agony, unnecessary harassment and financial loss also there was negligence and deficiency in service, adopting by the O.Ps.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to return rest 2 bags stored potato to the Complainant or price of rest 2 bags potato of Rs.35/- per Kg. i.e. (100Kg. X 35) Rs.3,500/- and also to pay (i) Rs.10,000/- for compensation for mental pain & agony and unnecessary harassment, (ii) Rs.10,000/- for breaking promise and deficiency in service and (iii) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
It appears that inspite of due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.1, Madan Mohan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its proprietor, Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.2, Madan Mohan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Cooch Behar, both O.Ps did not turn up before the Forum and accordingly the case proceeded in Ex-parte against them.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument in Ex-parte.
Point No.1.
Complainant, Gobinda Nath Roy being a small farmer stored/kept 20 packets (50 Kg. in each packets) seed potatoes in the Madan Mohan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Cooch Behar i.e. the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 against certain payment for which we are inclined to hold that the Complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Offices and Residence of the O.Ps are situated within the jurisdiction of this District as well as under the jurisdiction of this Forum and total valuation of this case is far less than maximum limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The O.P. NO.1, MADAN MOHAN COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD., Represented by its PROPRIETOR, Cooch Behar and the O.P. NO.2, MADAN MOHAN COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD., Represented by its MANAGER, Cooch Behar, and both O.Ps did not turn up before this Forum and accordingly the case proceeded in Ex-parte against them.
The Complainant in his complaint petition as well as in evidence on affidavit stated that O.Ps received advance money of Rs.1,225/- from the Complainant for storing 20 Bags of potato and issued a receipt, “Annexure – B” (Storage Rent Bill, SI. No.6530 Cont. No.5436 Name G. Roy) which itself depicted that the stored product for safe custody of O.Ps for prevention of distress sale and also the O.Ps are legally responsible to provide proper service towards the Complainant. The O.Ps also taken Rs.125/- for Drying Charge/ O.C from the Complainant. (Annexure-A).
In his complaint petition (send to the both OPs with the notice from this forum) complainant by making affidavit stated that, in 28th October, 2015 he went to the cold storage of the O.Ps and approached them for taking delivery his stored 20 bags potato by paying the balance rent amount. After receiving this rent amount the staff of the O.Ps namely Shyamal Barman returned 18 bags potato instead of 20 bags, which was mentioned in the storage rent bill (Annexure-B) issued by the cold storage authority. Mr. Shyamal Barman also gives his personal phone to number to the complainant for making contact to receive the rest two bags of potato. After that the Complainant regularly went to the said cold storage of the O.Ps for getting rest 2 bags stored potato. In spite of repeated requests to the O.Ps he did not receive the said two bags potato and the O.Ps intentionally delayed on the flimsy ground of shortage of staff and sometimes passed over the matter for next month. But consequently the O.Ps did not pay any heed towards the Complainant. Annexure “B” clearly shows that the O.Ps released 18 bags potato instead of 20 bags. Thus, the act and conduct of the O.Ps is clearly deficiency in service.
It is pertinent to mention that the O.Ps even after receiving the notice and by knowing the facts through the notice, OPs did not take any step or appear to the court that seems the OPs are in guilty and nothing to challenge the case. The O.Ps did not supply all potato bags as per requirements of the Complainant by violating the terms and conditions of the agreement, that also tantamount to deficiency in service by adopting the arms of Unfair Trade Practice.
Furthermore, the allegations of the Complainant against the O.Ps remain uncontroverted and stand proved.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and materials to its entirety, we have no hesitation but to hold that the Complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service of the O.Ps for which the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
Thus, the Complaint succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/02/2016 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs.2,000/- but in part.
Both the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay the Complainant Rs.3,500/- as compensation for loss of business of the Complainant and Rs.3,000/- for deficiency in service of the O.Ps which caused severe mental pain and agony of the Complainant. The entire order shall comply by the O.Ps jointly and/or severally within 45 days failure of which the O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
