Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 519.
Instituted on : 10.11.2015.
Decided on : 23.02.2017.
Jogender Singh s/o Zile Singh r/o Vill. Dighal District Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
M/s Vinay Cold Storage, Bhagwatipur Distt. Rohtak through Prop. Sh. Satbir Singh s/o Sh. Dariya Singh.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Dharambir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had given rent @ Rs.120/- per bag for storing the potatoes at the cold storage of opposite party and had paid Rs.7200/- in advance. It is averred that complainant suffered total loss of Rs.45000/- of 60 bags, Rs.7200/- for rent, Rs.2200/- for fare from Dighal to Bhagwatipur, Rs.36000/- on account of land taken on lease. It is averred that the complainant suffered a huge loss on account of spoiling of potatoes at the cold storage of the opposite party. It is averred that complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party but the reply was unsatisfactory. As such the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.90400/- on account of alleged loss from the opposite party.
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrong by misusing the process of law. The facts given in the complaint are false, baseless and mere concoction. It is averred that the complainant brought 60 bags of potatoes for storing in the cold storage of the opposite party. He paid the rent of two months and after paying that rent he did not turn up for a period of 6 months. The durability to keep the vegetables including potatoes was six months maximum. When the complainant contacted the opposite party asked him for the storing charges and to take away his potatoes but he did not turn up and to pressurize the opposite party not to take the rent threatened that he will file false cases against the opposite party. It is averred that a legal notice was served by the complainant which was duly replied by the opposite party by asking the opposite party to take away the potatoes but he did not take away the potatoes. It is averred that the condition of the potatoes was very good upto 31.10.2015 but the complainant did not turn up for the reasons best known to him. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.P1, complainant had stored 60 bags of potatoes at the cold storage of opposite party on 01.04.2015 for six months and as per receipt the last date of taking back of potatoes was 31.10.2015. The grievance of the complainant is that when the complainant went to the opposite party to get back the potatoes, they were totally destroyed due to negligence of opposite party and he suffered a huge loss. On the other hand contention of opposite party is that at the time of storing the bags the complainant had paid rent only for two months but he did not turn up for six months and when he contacted the opposite party, he was asked to pay the storing charges and to take away his potatoes but he did not turn up and as such there is no negligence on the part of opposite party.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the receipt Ex.P1, it is nowhere mentioned that the rent of Rs.7200/- taken from the complainant was for two months. It is also observed that alleged receipt was for six months. As per the legal notice Ex.P3 and receipt Ex.P4, the same was sent to the opposite party on 20.10.2015 which shows that the potatoes were already destroyed before the due date of taking back the potatoes i.e. 31.10.2015. On the other hand, opposite party has failed to prove that the alleged rent of Rs.7200/- taken from the complainant was for two months. Hence the charging of remaining rent of Rs.25200/- from the complainant does not arise. As such it is observed that the potatoes were not returned back to the complainant on the plea of remaining rent due to which the alleged potatoes get damaged and complainant suffered the loss on account of rent paid and cost of potatoes. However the cost of potatoes on the date of storage is not mentioned and regarding the other loss e.g. lease of land, freight/fare etc. complainant has not placed on record any receipt.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it would be suffice to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.15000/- to the complainant to meet out the ends of justice. As such it is directed that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
