Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1959 of 1999

Manager, Raghubar Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.,

Kayamganj Raod, Tehsil: Aliganj,

District: Etah.                                                       …Appellant.

Versus

Satyabhan Singh s/o Sri Bhumiraj Singh,

R/o Gram: Pawans, P.O. Pawans, Pargana:

Etah Sakeet, Tehsil & District: Etah.              .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate for the appellant.

Sri T.H. Naqvi, Advocate for the respondent.

Date   22.7.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- The appeal has been preferred by the Manager, Raghubar Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. under section 15 read with section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 2.6.1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Etah in complaint case no.414 of 1996.

          The grounds of the appeal are that, that the respondent/ complainant filed a complaint against the appellant with the allegation that on 31.3.1996 he kept 48 bags of potatoes vide cold storage receipt no.2917/48 and when the complainant on 10.10.1996 went to the cold storage for taking out his potatoes, he found the same  damaged/perished. He sent a notice to the appellant and claimed a relief of Rs.20640.00 and also filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

(2)

The case was contested and the appellant denied negligence on his part and submitted that due to improper  and irregular electric supply by Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, the cold storage could not run properly. The appellant installed a generator of 125 KW for the cold storage. Due to irregular supply of the electric by UPSEB, the farmer  were informed including the complainant vide letter dated 23.8.1996 inviting them to take out their potatoes as the same may get damaged. The things were beyond the control of the cold storage. There is no negligence on the part of the appellant.

The ld. Forum without appreciating the objections and contentions of the appellant erroneously allowed the alleged complaint and directed to pay Rs.8640.00 as the cost of potatoes and Rs.360.00 as cost of the suit within 30 days failing which 18% interest p.a. shall be payable.

The appellant, aggrieved by this judgment and order, preferred this appeal on following grounds.

That the impugned judgment is patently erroneous, factually wrong, legally perverse, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The said complaint is barred by the provisions of the Cold Storage Act and rules framed there-under which is a special enactment under which special remedy is provided and therefore, the said complaint is not cognizable by the District Consumer Forum. The complainant has already prayed the District Horticulture Officer under the provisions of the Cold Storage Act and therefore, cannot seek remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, on the said grounds the alleged complaint is liable

(3)

to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer under the Act. There is provision under the Cold Storage Act and section 17 provides that whether the goods are deteriorated, the complaint ought to have been filed before the licensing authority.

The complainant never came to take out his potatoes in response to the letter dated 27.8.1996 and in failing of the  same, no negligence can be attributed on the part of the cold storage nor there is any deficiency in service. Hence, the impugned judgment is erroneous.

The said complaint has been filed against the manager of the cold storage, hence bad in law. The appellant could not run the cold storage due to irregular and improper electric supply by the UPSEB, so he informed the respondent by the said letter to take out his potatoes but he did not turn out. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the appellant. There is no basis of the calculation of the value of the potatoes and the ld. Forum awarded Rs.240.00 per quintal without any basis. There is deficiency on the part of the electricity department. Hence, the said judgment and order be set aside.

Heard ld. Counsel Mr. Rajesh Chaddha for the appellant and Mr. T.H. Naqvi for the respondent and perused the judgment of the District Consumer Forum and documents.

In this case, it is clear that due to irregular supply of electricity as alleged by the appellant, the potatoes kept in the cold storage were damaged. The main contention of the appellant is that, that he sent a letter to the respondent/ complainant to take out his potatoes but as he did not turn up, the appellant cannot be held liable for the loss.

(4)

The other ground is that the complaint is barred by the Cold Storage Act and the complainant cannot seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act.  

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is an special Act for the protection of the consumer’s right and it is not in derogation of any Act but it is in addition to other Act. Any person who is consumer under the said Act can seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is barred by the Cold Storage Act.

Now, when in the cold storage invites the farmers to deposit their potatoes in the cold storage, he charges the amount for keeping the potatoes in the cold storage, it will be the responsibility of the cold storage to keep the potatoes in good condition. For the power backup, it is the duty of the cold storage to install a generator of sufficient capacity which can provide electricity in emergency. If the appellant’s generator would have been in a good condition and of sufficient power, the potatoes would not be perished or damaged.

As far as the price of the potatoes is concerned, the appellant did not file any document of that time showing the price of potatoes per quintal. If there is any loss to the cold storage by ill act of the UPSEB, the cold storage can seek remedy against the UPSEB in proper forum but he cannot deny his liability on the ground that it is the negligence of the UPSEB.

The District Forum has assessed the value of the potatoes as Rs.8640.00. There were 48 bags of potatoes having 80-85 Kgs per bag. The complainant also spent money

(5)

for  transporting the potatoes to the cold storage and also paid rent for keeping the potatoes, to the cold storage. The District Consumer Forum has awarded Rs.9000.00 in all which is proper and needs no interference. However, the rate of interest @18% seems on the higher side. The interest rate will be 12% in place of 18%. The rest part of the judgment is upheld.

ORDER

          Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum regarding award of Rs.9000.00 is upheld but the rate of interest will be 12% in place of 18%.

          Let the record be consigned.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.  

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules. 

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 3

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 3