Complainant Rachhpal Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.66,560/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due till its actual realization. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite party, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of agricultural land. He is agriculturist by profession and earning his livelihood for himself as well as for his family members by way of self employment and except this, he is having no other source of income. He has sown potato in his agricultural land in the year 2014 and the same has been ripened and prepared uptil the first week of April 2015. He removed the said potato from his fields and has made distribution of the said potatoes and good quality of potato was filled by him in the bags each having 50 Kg of weight. The total bags having each weight of 50 Kg are 128 bags, meaning thereby that the total weight of the potatoes becomes 64 quintals. The rate of potatoes was Rs.10/- per KG and thus the said potatoes becomes worth Rs.64,000/-. For storage of the said potatoes in the bags, he has used high quality of bags and each having rate of Rs.20/-, meaning thereby that he has spent an amount of Rs.2560/- for the purchase of 128 bags for storage of potatoes. Thereafter, he shifted the potatoes into the cold store of the opposite party on 22.4.2015 which are numbering in 128. He has further pleaded that the opposite party has  kept the said bags of potatoes in his cold store till the completion of month of October 2015 for preservation of the said potatoes.  At the time of preserving his potatoes, the opposite party has stated that his cold store is having technology of high tech equipments and his potatoes will remain in quite and O.K. condition uptil the completion of month of October 2015 and when he will remove the said potatoes from his cold store, the same would be in good and accurate condition. It was settled between the parties that he has to pay the total amount of Rs.9,000/- to the opposite party qua the storage of the potatoes for the period with effect from April 2015 to complete October 2015 and out of it he has paid Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party on 22.4.2015 and entry to this effect was also made. On the contrary, the opposite party has not properly started the said cold store and due to that reason, his potatoes has become damaged as it came to his notice in the first week of October 2015 when he has visited the cold store of the opposite party for seeing his potatoes and also for bringing some potatoes with him but he was shocked and surprised when he saw that his potatoes become totally damaged, as some of the of potatoes have grown up in the bags and bags have also been torn  due to the ripened and grown up potatoes. Due to this he has suffered a lot of harassment due to the damage of his potatoes and in this way the opposite party have caused huge financial loss to him to the tune of Rs.66,560/- He has approached to the opposite party with the request of make the payment of Rs.66,560/- to him due to the loss suffered by him but of no use. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has come to the Forum with soiled hands and have suppressed the true and material facts from this Ld.Forum and as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present false and frivolous complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party is owner of the Cold Store named and styled M/s.Raj Cold Storage, Gurdaspur and he is running the said Cold Store with due diligence and after taking into account all the necessary things. The complainant had stored his potatoes in the Cold Store of the opposite party and there are number of other customers who have also stored their respective potatoes in the store of the opposite party. The opposite party is having well equipped high technique Cold Store and there is every facility in the said Cold Store for proper maintenance of the potatoes. The potatoes of the complainant were properly stored in the Cold Store and properly looked after and maintained. At the time of its totally ripened status, the complainant was called by the opposite party with the request that at that pint of time, the potatoes have been in ripened condition and the same are very suitable for selling at that time. But the complainant has shown hesitation on the pretext that he was having hope that at the time of ripening of the potatoes, good and excessive rate of potatoes will come in the Market, but the market is in very slump. The complainant remained waiting for the period when the prices of the potatoes will touch to the sky and in this hope, he did not remove the potatoes from the store of the opposite party. The other customers have removed their potatoes from the store on its ripening. Even the complainant was asked to remove the potatoes vide request letter dated 22.10.2015 and 4.11.2015 despite other several oral requests, but all the requests being made by the opposite party were put on deaf ears of the complainant. The requests were made to him since the opposite party has to close the Store. The present complaint is an abuse on process of laws. The complainant by way of filing this false complaint wants to extract some money from the opposite party and to drag the opposite party into unwanted litigation, as such the opposite party claims special costs from the complainant Under Section 35-A of Civil Procedure Code. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Badev Raj Prop. of Raj Gold Storage Ex.OP-1 and of Jarnail Singh Ex.OP-2, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4  and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the light of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels of both-side litigants while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the complainant was reluctant to ‘lift-back’ his 128 Bags of ‘cold-storage’ Potatoes in October’ 2015 (as mutually agreed upon with the OP Cold Store at the time of storage in April, 2015) since he found the ‘potatoes’ damaged on account of ‘improper’ refrigeration at the OP’s end, in the very ‘first-week’ of October’2015, itself; whereas the OP has vehemently rebutted the complainant’s above charge alleging that the stocks were not lifted-back by the complainant on account of ‘low’ non-remunerative      (un-profitable) market rates of potatoes in October’ 2015, against the high expectations of the complainant. In support of his version the OP has produced 2 nos. of notices dated 22.10.2015 & 04.11.2015 (Ex.OP3 & OP4) along with the deposition Ex.OP2 of one Jarnail Singh deputed to serve these ‘in-person’ upon the complainant. However, the allegation/ claim of non-remunerative market rates of Potatoes in October’ 2015 stays ‘not-proved’, as such. On the other hand, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged ‘damage’ caused to the stored ‘potatoes’ at the OP Cold Storage on account of ‘poor’ refrigeration etc. The 3 nos. of photographs (Ex.C3, C4 & C5) of ‘sprouted’ (damaged) potatoes-in-bags do not prove the requisite factoring parameters. The specific identity of the photographed potatoes vis-à-vis place and time (date) of photographs has not been established through the requisite ‘deposition’ of the photographer and/ or some other associate/means etc. And, in its absence even the related portions of the complainant’s deposition (Ex.C1) turn out to be simple ‘bald-statements’. We have seek-fully studied the 2 nos. of the complainants’ cited judgments of the honorable NCDRC, New Delhi in 2007(2) CPJ 40 titled Jawahar Cold Storage & Ice Factory vs. Pramod Kumar & 2008(1) CLT 592 titled Sanjay Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar Yadav; but respectfully state the variance in inter-se ratios since the ‘damage’ here to the stored potatoes with its ‘time & cause’ could not be established. Under the circumstances, we find that the complaint has failed to high-light any ‘statutory’ merit in its presentation to attract a favorable award under the Act.            

7.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint devoid of all actionable merit under the statute and thus ORDER its dismissal with no orders as to its costs. The complainant, here shall however be at liberty to avail of any ‘relief’ through a legal remedy available in law duly proceeded to as prescribed in law.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

April,06 2016                                                                     Member

*MK*