Date of Order : 25.02.2017
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,500/- ( Thirty Thousand Five Hundred only ) @ Rs. 1,000/- per quintal.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 35,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Five thousand only ) for loss of cultivation in next season.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) for mental torture.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant who is a farmer has asserted that on 31.03.2007 he has deposited 30 (Thirty) quintal and 50 (Fifty) KG potato in 61 packets containing 50 (Fifty) KG potato in each packet in opposite party’s cold storage. The aforesaid potato were kept in the cold storage by the complainant for using it as seeds in the coming season for which he had deposited Rs. 500/- as advance. The opposite party has issued receipt in the name of the complainant as will appear from annexure – 2.
On 27.10.2007 the complainant approached the opposite parties for cultivation purpose then he was informed by the opposite parties that his potato had been sold. The complainant was shocked as the aforesaid potato were kept for his personal use. However he demanded amount of the potato and the opposite parties assured him that Rs. 21,203/- will be given to him which is the amount of aforesaid sold potato.
The complainant thereafter objected that the amount of the sold potato i.e. Rs. 21,203/- is very law then the opposite parties became ready to pay the present rate of potato within nine weeks but the aforesaid amount was not given thereafter on 08.04.2008 he has given legal notice vide annexure – 3.
On behalf of opposite parties instead of filing written statement an objection was filed stating therein that as opposite party no. 1 is one of the partner of M/s Shakti Cold Storage who is lessee of “BISCOMAUN” under eleven years lease agreement since 09.10.2003 hence this complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties because he is lessee only and not the licensee.
It have been further stated by opposite party no. 1 that this complaint is not maintainable in view of section 25 of the Bihar State Regulation of Cold Storage act 1992 and as per section 2(g) of the said Act the present complaint should be filed before licensing officer i.e. District Horticulture officer.
However the fact asserted by the complainant in Para – 3,4,5,6 and 7 has not been denied.
From order sheet dated 08.11.2010 it appears that Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 but the preliminary objection is filed by opposite party no. 1 only.
So far maintainability of this complainant is concerned section 25 of the Bihar State Regulation of Cold Storage Act 1992 or any other provision of this Act does not debar this forum from deciding the case under this act.
It is needless to say that under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as follows, “ Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” Hence from bare perusal of scheme of the Consumer protection Act 1986 it is crystal clear that the remedy provided under the act is in addition to provision of any other law for time enforce because this act provides the Consumer an additional remedy besides under that may be available under other existing laws.
Hence we find and hold that this complaint is maintainable under the provision of consumer protection act.
So far fact is concerned the fact asserted by the complainant has not been denied by opposite parties by filing written statement rather a vague preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this case have been filed by opposite party no. 1 which have been discussed in above Paras.
In view of the fact stated above we have no option but to rely on the statement of complainant made in the complaint on oath because there is no counter version of the opposite parties so far the fact of the complainant is concerned.
It is needless to say that the fact asserted in the complaint petition definitely disclose deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
In view of the aforesaid fact we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 30,500/- ( Rs. Thirty Thousand Five Hundred only ) which is the price of the potato kept in the cold storage of opposite parties within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will have to pay 10% interest on the above mentioned amount till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation within the period of two months.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
