STATE CONSUMER DISPUTEs REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No.88 of 2018

(Arising out of complaint case no.08/2012)

Satyendra Singh,

 Son of Late Nathuni Singh,

 Proprietor of Himsheela Cold Storage

 & Ice Factory (Pvt.) Ltd.

 situated at Village- Paruhar,

P.S.- Darihat, District- Rohtas.                                               Appellant (Opposite party no.1).

Versus

Ravi Shankar Singh,

Son of Late Krishna Kumar Singh @ Lallan Singh,

resident of Village-Dharahara,

P.S.- Darihat, District- Rohtas.                                                         Respondent/Complainant.

            Learned Counsel for the Appellant :-Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh

            Learned Counsel for the Respondent:- Mr. Tiwari  Shwetketu

Before,

                Miss Gita Verma, Judicial Member

    Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey, Member

ORDER

Per:Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)

Dated-12.06.2023

                                  This appeal has been field by the appellant (Opposite party No.1) against the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtas at Sasaram (in short the District Commission) in complaint case no. 08/2012 whereby and where under the opposite party no.1 ( the appellant) was directed to pay Rs.1,70,000/- as value of potato with 9% simple interest from September, 2008 along with Rs. 50,000/- as physical and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within two months from the  date of passing of impugned order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to recover the amount  under process of law.  

2.                       In short, the case of the complainant is that he stored approximately   Three hundred (300) quintals of potatoes in 586 ( Five hundred eighty six) pockets in the custody of Opposite parties (Appellant’s) cold storage namely- Himsheela Cold Storage & Ice Factory Private Limited at vill- Paruhar, P.S.- Darihat, District- Rohtas (Bihar) on rent@ of Rs.105/- per quintal from 19.02.2008 to 31.03.2008 and got receipts from the opposite parties. The Potatoes were returnable in the month of September 2008. It is the further case of the complainant that in due month the complainant and his father approached the Opposite party to got return the potatoes pockets, on which opposite parties replied to come after 10 days but after lapse of 10 days the opposite parties took another time 15-20 days and at last on 10.10.2008 the opposite parties refused to return the Potatoes and also misbehaved and threatening them. It  has been further stated that being aggrieved the complaint sent a legal  notice to the opposite parties on 18.10.2008 but there was no response. Hence owing the heavy economic loss, physical and mental harassment the father of the complainant become serious ill and despite every possible treatment he lastly died on 16.10.2009. Thereafter a criminal complaint was filed against the opposite parties at civil court, Sasaram and consequently a police case vide Darihat P.S. case no.54/2009 under sections 406,420,504/34 IPC was registered, in which opposite parties were granted bail by the competent Court. It has been further stated that the opposite parties had neither returned the potatoes nor have paid a single paisa for the same. It has been also stated that on interference of some well wishers of both parties the opposite parties were agreed to pay the price of potatoes as per the rate of the year 2008 with interest @ 12% and the time for payment was fixed in November 2010 but the opposite parties were failed to pay money. Thereafter second and third legal notice were sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, but there was no response. As the complainant had no option but to file consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, hence the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission, praying that the order should be passed for the payment of total Rs.3,45,000/- (Three lacs Forty five thousand) inclusive the value of the potatoes as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             On notice the opposite parties appeared before the District Commission and filed written statement in which, it was stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was not legally maintainable and it had been also stated that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 had no connection with the complaint case. It has been further stated that the complainant and his father stored only 296 quintals of Potatoes in the cold storage of the opposite party no.1 on different dates and on 16.09.2009 they received 60 quintals Potatoes from the cold storage  and due to delay caused on part of the complainant for receiving the rest potatoes it was got damaged for which matter was settled on 24.11.2009 for Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, the father of the complainant received Rs.20, 000/- and as per the settlement Rs.30,000/- was to be paid to the complainant for which he was still ready. It has been further stated that the real story had been suppressed by the complainant as terms and conditions of the cold storage were printed on the back foot of the receipt, which was overlooked by the complainant. It was further stated that as complainant withheld to receive the Potatoes in time, hence, the potatoes got damaged for which the opposite parties could not be made responsible. The potatoes got damaged due to unavoidable circumstances, which was under the condition applying on receipt. It had been further stated that the criminal case lodged by the brother of the complainant was false. However, it had been stated that the charge sheet was submitted in that case only against the opposite party no.1 Satyendra Singh (appellant) under section 406, IPC and that very time the case was still pending before the Court of first class Magistrate, Sasaram. It had been also stated that in said criminal case the opposite party no.1, had been under judicial custody for 10 days, hence a person cannot be punished twice.. It had been also stated that the contents of Criminal Case and Consumer complaint case had vital contradiction  and the prayer was made to dismiss the complaint case with cost.

4.                After hearing both the parties and analyzing documentary and oral evidence the District commission passed the order as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this order.

5.            Both the parties have filed written notes of argument in support of their respective case.

6.             In his written notes of argument various points of law and facts have been raised by the appellant, first contention of the appellant is regarding the limitation period under which it has been stated that the complaint case was filed after prescribed statutory period of two years, without any petition regarding condonation of the delay and in this regard the attention has been drawn on para- 1 of the complaint petition. In support of his contention the appellant referred the case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (II, 2009 C.P.J 29 (SC) ) a Xerox copy of judgment has been attached on annexure-1 with the notes of argument. The next contention of the appellant is regarding the principle of judicial impropriety and in support of this principle the appellant has referred a case law titled as Gannamani Anasuya and others. Vs. Parvatini Amrendra Choudhary and others (2007) 10 SCC 296 under reference of this case the appellant has emphasised that, for the same cause of action two separate proceedings have not been allowed under the law. But in this case it has been happened. The appellant has referred next case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as ‘Medical council of India Vs. G.C.R.G Medical Trust and ors. (2018) 12 SCC 564 The appellant further drawn our attention regarding compromise arrived between both the parties and on the basis of which the matter was settled on 24.01.2009 and the appellant- opposite party no.1 promised to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and in lieu of that compromise Rs.20,000/- was paid by instant appellant to the Lalan Singh, the father of the complainant and remaining amount Rs.30,000/- purported to be paid to the complainant but  this amount was not paid due to false criminal complaint was filed by brother of the complainant against the appellant. The appellant prayed that considering the above noted facts and circumstances the order passed by the learned District Commission should be set aside in the interest of substantial justice.

7.          On the other hand in his written notes of arguments the Respondent has stated that the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by the law of limitation and it has been further stated that the order passed by the learned District Commission is fully consonance with law. He has further mentioned some part of the impugned order and denied the fact of compromise as stated by the appellant. The Respondent has further reiterated the correctness of impugned order and it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant to be dismissed and upheld the judgment passed by the learned District Commission.

8.                We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

9.               There is no doubt that the complainant is a consumer as the complainant had obtained the services of the cold storage of the Appellant on payment basis. The potatoes were kept in the cold storage for safety of the potatoes for long time. But, as per the averments made in the complaint petition on demand of stored potatoes, the Appellant/Opposite parties denied to return the same. After perusal of the complaint petition it also appears that a criminal complaint case was filed on behalf of the complainant (through his brother) in civil court, Sasaram and later on Darihat P.S. case no.54/2009 u/ss 406, 420, 504/34 IPC was registered by the police against the opposite parties, in which charge-sheet u/s 406 I.P.C had submitted against the opposite party no.1 Satyendra Singh ( the appellant). Thereafter in the year 2012 the consumer complaints was filed. After perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite parties before the learned District Commission, it has been appeared that only 296 quintals potatoes was stored in the cold storage of the opposite parties and out of which on 16.09.2009, 60 quintals potatoes was received by the complainant and due to delay caused on part of the complainant to receiving rest potatoes, the potatoes got damaged, for which the matter was settled on 24.01.2009  upon which father of the  complainant received Rs.20,000/-immediately  and rest Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid to the complainant,  but due to false criminal complaint filed on behalf of the brother of the complainant  the efforts taken towards the settlement went in vein. The Opposite parties has stated that the receiving receipt of money was filed before the learned  District Commission but the learned District Commission did not consider the proof neither took effort to examine the genuiness of the money receipt.

10.               After perusal of the averments made in complainant petition, written statement and contents of the oral evidence filed in form of affidavits and cross-examined by the parties concerned, as well as documentary proof filed on behalf of the parties we find that various complex questions of law and facts were involved in the matter placed before the learned District Commission, which was difficult to be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Act.  Hence the order passed by the learned District Commission on 12.03.2013 in complaint case no.08/2012 is set aside.

11.                The complainant has thus, been relegated to civil Court.

12.                As a result, the appeal stand disposed of. 

 13.              A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019 and also to be sent to the learned District Commission by way of proper mode of service. Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

14.              Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

            (Raj Kumar Pandey)                                            (Gita Verma)

                     Member (M)                                              Judicial Member (F)                                               

Anita