Haryana

Ambala

CC/180/2011

BAKSHISH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHRI SHANKAR PURI COLD STORE - Opp.Party(s)

HAJOT SINGH

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                     Complaint Case No.:   180 of 2011

          Date of Institution    :   02.06.2011

          Date of Decision  :     15.10.2015

Bakshish Singh, s/o Sardar Puran Singh R/o VPO Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                             ……….Complainant    

                                                                                                               Versus

1.       M/s Shri Shankar Puri Cold Store, Plot No.1, I.D.C., G.T. Road, Ambala City.

2.       Sh. Sonu Dhawan, Proprietor of M/s Shri Shankar Puri Cold Store, Plot No.1, I.D.C., G.T. Road, Ambala City.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Harjot Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for Ops.                     

ORDER

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and has been growing the vegetables in his fields for the last so many years and is earning his livelihood by selling the vegetables in the market.  On 03.05.2009, the complainant visited the OP cold-store regarding storage of onions where OP No.2 assured that a large number of people stores their onions, potatoes in their cold store  and his onions will also be kept safe in the cold store. Accordingly, the complainant kept 196 bags/Kattas of onion in the cold store of OP on rent @ Rs.100/- per bag for a period of 24.05.2009 to 15.09.2009.   In the first week of September 2009, the complainant visited the OP cold-store to take back the onion bags where the complainant stunned to see that the maximum onions which were kept by him were perished /spoiled and on inquiry, the Ops failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Further, on inquiry from the nearby residents, complainant came to know  that for installation of mobile tower at the roof of the cold store, the same was broken/damaged, resulting into leakage of rainy water inside the cold store causing spoiling of the onion bags. As such, the complainant has submitted that he has suffered a loss of more than Rs.98,000/- i.e. cost of 196 Bags @ Rs.500/- per bag for which the Ops are jointly & severally liable. In this way, complainant has hired the services of Ops but they have provided deficient services and due to this reason, Ops did not delivered the onion bags to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been filed by the complainant.  

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint  being time barred on the point that the alleged bags of onion were handed over for storage in the month of May 2009 whereas and the present complaint has been filed in the month of June, 2011 which is beyond the period of two years.  Further the onion bags were never stored by the complainant rather the same were stored  by one commission agent i.e. M/s Jagdamba Cold Storage, Ladwa vide their letter head for commercial purpose, hence, on this score also, the complaint is not maintainable  on the point of consumer as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP No.1 for storing the onions with them rather it was stored by Jagdamba Cold Storage and he had also taken the delivery of the bags under different names and even not a single penny was paid by the complainant  to the Op, hence, the complainant is not a consumer. Ops have further contended that there is  no any deficiency in service, imperfection or shortcoming on their part in any manner whatsoever and so much so, the complaint is bad for unnecessary impleading the OP No.2 as a party since  there is no person in the name of Mr. Sonu. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

3.                To prove his version, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW-1/A alongwith document as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit of Sh. Naresh Dhawan as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.  

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The counsel for the complainant argued that the onion stored by complainant with the Ops found perished at the time of taking of its delivery due to negligence of Ops  as they got  installed mobile tower at the roof of cold storage after storage of onions by the complainant and during this process, rainy water leaked in the cold storage due to cracks occurred in the roof of cold store and further during the installation of tower, cooling plant of cold  store also remained in-operative/non-functional and thus the complainant has suffered a monetary loss  to the tune of Rs.98,000/- as cost of onions besides the harassment & mental agony etc.

                   On the other hand, counsel for Ops has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable since the bags of onion were never handed over to the Ops  by the complainant  rather onion was stored by M/s Jagdamba Cold Storage for commercial purpose  which have already  been received  by them vide various receipts during the month of September 2009.  The counsel further argued that the complaint is barred under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act as the facts of the present case ambits the complaint in question within the parameter of storage of goods for  commercial purpose.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record very minutely, it reveals from perusal of document Annexure C-1 (Cold Storage Receipt) that it is not an authentic document to prove that the complainant has stored 196 Bags of onion with OP Cold Store i.e. Shri Shankar Puri Cold Storage Ambala City as the said cold  storage receipt neither bears the name & signature of the recipient  of the onions nor is having any correct particulars rather appears to be a procured document having the name of  cold store printed on the paper either from  computer or Printing Press etc. Further no any Sales Tax Number of the firm has been mentioned on the alleged letter-head and thus it is a bogus document.  On the contrary, the version of the Ops that the said onions were got stored with them by one Commission Agent M/s Jagdamba Cold Store, Ladwa for commercial purpose  and they have taken the delivery of same back in the month of September 2009 vide receipts Annexures R-1 to R-13 under various names appears to be genuine  and as such, the complainant was having no cause of action to file the present complaint against Ops and he also does not come in the definition of consumer as enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act.

                   Therefore, in view of the facts discussed above, we are of the confirmed opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of cost, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:15.10.2015                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                          (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                    MEMBER

 

                       

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.