Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1576

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chand Cold Storage - Opp.Party(s)

Amrik S. Rattniya

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 1576 of 2012

                                                         

                                   Date of institution: 27.11.2012 

                             Date of Decision:    19.2.2015

 

Gurcharan Singh s/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Resident of Vill. Khappianwali @ Birwianwali, Tehsil and Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Chand Cold Storage, Gaushala Street, Tibbi Sahib Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Sole Proprietor/Partner.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party

First Appeal against the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. A.S. Rattniya, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Sh. Manu Luna, Advocate

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.31 dated 10.2.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent/opposite party(hereinafter referred as ‘the OP’)  on the allegations that the complainant is resident of District Sri Muktsar Sahib whereas the Ops running the cold storage under the name and style of Chand Cold Storage, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The complainant got stored 233 potato bags in the Cold Store of the Op. The rate of the storage was fixed at Rs. 60/- per bag and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2500/- in advance to OP on 26.3.2011. The OP was bound to preserve the potato bags in their cold storage during the preservation period with utmost care. However, to utter surprise of the complainant when he visited the cold store of the Ops then all these potatoes had got damaged and were giving foul smell by which the OP had caused the business loss to the extent of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the complainant. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lacs.

3.                The complaint was contested by the OP, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant had no cause of action to file this complaint and the complaint was false and frivolous, therefore, liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was admitted that the Op is running M/s Chand Cold Storage and it is a register partnership firm. Sh. Chand Loona is one of its partner. It is matter of record regarding storage of the potato bags by the complainant in their cold storage. However, the Op received the goods subject to terms and conditions printed overleaf. However, after storage of the potato bags, the complainant had taken 10 bags of potato upto 9.9.2010 whereas he failed to obtain the remaining bags of potato on account of decline in the price. The potatoes start to damage, a sum of Rs. 11980 was outstanding against the complainant, he failed to pay this amount. It was submitted that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Op and the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, bills Exs. C-2 to C-4, legal notice Ex. C-5, postal receipt Ex. C-6.  On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Chand Loona Ex. OP-1, Gate Pass copy Exs. OP-2 & OP-3.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum.

7.                In the grounds of appeal, it has been submitted by the appellant that the potatoes got damaged due to negligence of the respondent/OP whereas the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence on the record. Accordingly, it was submitted that the appeal be allowed, impugned order be set-aside and consequently, the complaint be allowed.

8.                There is no dispute with regard to storage of the potato by the complainant with the OP on 28.3.2011 but in the month of October, 2011, the complainant visited the cold storage of the OP then the potatoes were found to be in a damaged condition. However, no such report regarding damage to these potatoes have been placed on the record and without any report, it cannot be said that the potatoes got stored with the opposite party were damaged. No report from the expert was undertaken as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, the complainant does not fall within the definition of the ‘consumer’ as the complainant was running the business to sell the potatoes and these were got deposited with the Ops in connection with potato business of the complainant. The complaint is silent that complainant was running the business of storing and selling the potatoes to earn his livelihood for self employment and in the absence of said pleading the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. Reliance has been placed on the judgment 2009(1) CLT 462 “Nijjar Cold Storage, Kapurthala and anothers Versus Jarnail Singh” wherein in similar preposition, it was held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the ‘consumer’. No contrary judgment has been cited by the counsel for the appellant, therefore, the appellant/complainant does not fall within the definition of the ‘consumer’. The findings so recorded by the District Forum are correct findings and we affirm the same.

9.                In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

February 19, 2015.                                                                                                                               (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                                                                                                  Member