BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.490 of 2015
Date of Instt. 13.11.2015
Date of Decision :15.11.2016
Charanjit Singh son of Shri Harbhajan Singh, aged 37 years resident of Village Sikandarpur, Tehsil Jalandhar-I, District Jalandhar, 9815879586.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Kartar Cold Storage, Village Lesriwala, Post Office Adampur, District Jalandhar through its Manager.
Proprietor of M/s Kartar Cold Storage, Village Lesriwala, Post Office Adampur, District Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. B.S. Chahal Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Om Parkash Adv., counsel for OP No.1 & 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that he is a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant is a farmer doing cultivation of potatoes in the area of Village Sikandarpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar and had been storing his potatoes in the cold storage of the opposite parties for the last three years. In the month of April 2015, complainant stored potatoes seeds, potatoes goli and potatoes kat. In the following manner i.e. on 5.4.2015 stored 119 bags of seeds and 76 bags of goli, on 6/4/2015 stored 155 bags of seeds and 36 bags of goli, on 7/4/2015 stored 126 bags of seeds and 104 bags of goli, on 8/4/2015 stored 110 bags of seeds and 100 bags of goli, on 10/4/2015 stored 6 bags of seeds and 38 bags of kat, on 11/4/2015 stored 24 bags of seeds and 93 bags of goli and 27 bags of kat, on 11/4/2015 stored 25 bags of seeds and 23 bags of goli in total 565 bags of seeds and 432 bags of goli and 65 bags of kat.
2. The complainant stored the produces against receipts issued by the opposite parties. While storing the produces, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as charges of the store to the opposite parties through a cheque which was duly encashed. In the month of September 2015, the complainant went to take back the stored potatoes but the potatoes were completely perished and became good for nothing for the complainant. Photographs showing the condition of the potatoes are enclosed. The complainant had been approaching the opposite parties time and again to make good the loss occurred to him but all the efforts made by the complainant proved abortive. Ultimately, the opposite parties refused to pay the damages caused by them to the complainant. The Value of the potatoes is at the rate of Rs. 250/- per bag for the seeds, Rs. 350/- per bag for the goli and Rs. 150/- per bag for the kat. In this manner, the total damage caused to the complainant by the opposite parties comes to Rs. 3,02,200/-. The complainant spent this amount for procuring the produces in order to sow the same in his fields. The opposite parties are liable to pay the same alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of storing of the produces till final realization. The act of the opposite parties in not storing the producing under proper care has caused a huge financial loss to the complainant and the same is illegal, unlawfull, arbitrary, unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service which has caused great inconvenience, mental tension, agony financial loss and the complainant has befooled by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to pay the value of the potatoes of the complainant and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation expenses. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with a request to consider his case but the opposite parties did not consider the demands and did not pay the amount to the complainant. Since all the ordinary means for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant have proved abortive, the complainant has been left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- received from the complainant at the time of storing of the potatoes and further to pay a sum of Rs. 3,02,200/- to the complainant being the price of the produces which the complainant purchase for sowing his crops in the fields and further to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages on account of unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service and also awarded costs of the complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly both the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint in the present form is not at all maintainable hence deserves dismissal and further averred that no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties for filing the present complaint and further alleged that the complaint is based for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties even the plaintiff are estopped by his own act, conduct, waiver, acquiesce, latches from filing the present complaint and further alleged that the complainant has concealed and suppressed true and material facts from this forum. Even the complaint is based on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds even to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the opposite parties having M/s Kartar Cold Storage and also admitted that the complainant stored his potatoes with the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. The remaining contents and allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C12 and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Santokh Raj Manager of M/s Kartar Cold Store Ex. OPA alongwith documents Ex. OA to Ex. OK and other tendered affidavit of Arjun Singh Ex. OPB and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 1 & 2.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that the complainant is an agriculturist and accordingly he stored different types of potatoes in the cold store of the opposite parties and also paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as charges of the store to the opposite parties through cheque which was encashed but when he took back the stored potatoes, the same were completely perished it means that the opposite party has not properly stored and cared the potatoes and due to that reason, the potatoes became perished and for that purpose, the complainant is entitled for the price of the potatoes to the tune of Rs. 3,02,200/- and charges deposited by the complainant of Rs. 25,000/- and other compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- as well as litigation charges.
8. To the contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant deposited the potatoes and at that time, the same was not in a good condition rather they were already damaged and to this effect, it was mentioned on the receipt issued to the complainant at the time of storing of the potatoes. The said receipts are produced on the file by the complainant himself, the same are Ex. C1, C4 and Ex. C6 and it is also not a case of the complainant that he has not received the entire potatoes rather he alleged that the potatoes so returned to him are perished but the opposite party has given proper care to the potatoes of the complainant which was stored alongwith the potatoes of other farmer and accordingly the opposite parties has brought on the file affidavit of other farmer namely Arjun Singh, Ex. OPB wherein he categorically stated that he has also deposited the potatoes in the year 2015-2016 but his potatoes was never destroyed. So, it means the potatoes of the complainant was also not destroyed/ perished nor he protest at the time of taking the delivery, so it is self make story later on just to take compensation from the opposite party and therefore, the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.
9. After hearing the case, it reveals that the deposit of potatoes of different type is not denied. The question remains only whether the potatoes so returned to the complainant became perished due to negligence on the part of the opposite party. For that purpose, we think it is the basic duty of the complainant to prove and produce on the file some cogent and convincing evidence to establish that when he take the delivery of potatoes from opposite parties at that time, the same was perished. For that purpose, the complainant had to get check the potatoes from any agriculture expert i.e. any employee of the Agriculture Department but no expert evidence has been brought on the file except one affidavit of the complainant himself as well as photographs, but we cannot ascertained whether photographs placed on the file regarding perished potatoes is related to the same potatoes of which delivery had been taken by the complainant from the opposite parties. So, accordingly, we come to the conclusion that the photographs Ex. C8 to Ex. C12 do not connect with the case of the complainant in any manner.
10. Apart from above, the receipts brought on the file by the complainant whereby he deposited the potatoes himself shows that at the time of depositing, the potatoes was not in good condition for reference. We can see receipt Mark C1, C4 and C6 wherein categorically mentioned that potatoes are having spots thereon. On the other side, potatoes of one Arjun Singh was also stored in the same cold store of the opposite parties and the affidavit of the said Arjun Singh is available on the file as Ex. OPB wherein categorically deposed that he also stored his potatoes in the year 2015-2016 but the same were never destroyed, so, it means that there is not deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and therefore we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore the complaint is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
15.11.2016 Member President
