| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.479 of 30-10-2015 Decided on 15-12-2016 Gamdoor Singh S/o Mohar Singh S/o Sadhu Singh R/o Village Machhana, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Singla Cold Storage, Tarkhan Wala, Refinery Road, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor Davinder Pal Singla. 2.Nikhil Singla, Manager, Singla Cold Storage, Tarkhan Wala, Refinery Road, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.V.P.S Khurmi, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Shaminder Singh Sohal, Advocate. ORDER Jarnail Singh, Member The complainant Gamdoor Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Singla Cold Storage and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is small farmer and his entire family depends on his income i.e. agricultural income. Opposite party No.1 is owner of cold storage known as Singla Cold Storage, Tarkhan Wala, Refinery Road, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda and opposite party No.2 is its manager. They are storing various products of the people by charging rent. It is alleged that in the last year, the complainant has grown potatoes and with an intention to save his crops, he stored 264 bags of potatoes with opposite parties vide different receipts. In lieu of the rent of the cold storage, the complainant paid Rs.8000/- to opposite parties on 28.3.2015 as advance rent of cold storage. Opposite parties have been charging rent for storing the potatoes in their cold storage. Opposite parties have given assurance that they are responsible for the maintenance of the potatoes in their cold storage and they shall return the same in good condition as and when so desired by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant visited opposite parties to get the delivery of his 264 potatoes bags, but he found that all the bags have been damaged as opposite parties have stored the bags more than the capacity of the cold store. They have caused loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/- as the market value of the potatoes is Rs.20/- per kgs. The complainant alongwith others approached before the police of P.S Romana and police lodged DDR No.15 dated 24.10.2015 in which the matter was thoroughly investigated by ASI Manjit Singh of PS Romana, he has clearly mentioned in his report that all the potatoes bags have been damaged due to negligence of opposite parties as they have stored the potatoes bags more than the capacity of the cold store. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has claimed Rs.1 lac on account of harassment plus cost of litigation and Rs.2,65,000/- as cost of potatoes. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written version. In their joint written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections that this complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure their goodwill and reputation. This complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. As such, opposite parties are entitled to get special costs from the complainant U/s 26 of 'Act'. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination that is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. It is pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties. As such, he is not entitled to any relief. He has concealed the fact that he has stored the potatoes in wet, poor and smeared condition. This fact is within the knowledge of the complainant. This fact is clearly mentioned on the slips/parchi issued to him and it was brought by opposite parties to his notice, but he alongwith other farmers made agitation against opposite parties. As such, under the compelled circumstances, opposite parties stored the wet, smeared and poor condition potatoes. He wanted to misuse the process of law to get undue gain and benefit from opposite parties. He is not a consumer of opposite parties. He has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint against opposite parties. On merits, it is denied that opposite parties received Rs.8000/- from the complainant for storing his potatoes. It is further mentioned that the complainant and other failed to take delivery of his/their potatoes up to 31.10.2015, rather they have forced opposite parties to pay the price of their smeared potatoes. As such, opposite parties have already filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending in the court of Sh.Suresh Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda. All other averments of the complainant are categorically denied. After controverting all other averments, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above and in the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of stock receipts, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C3); photocopies of jamabandi for the year 2009-10, (Ex.C4); photocopies of DDRs, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6); his own affidavit dated 29.2.2016, (Ex.C7); photocopy of conditions, (Ex.C8) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Devinder Pal Singla dated 31.3.2016, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of civil suit, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopies of gate pass, (Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/6); photocopy of conditions, (Ex.OP1/7); photocopy of letter, (Ex.OP1/8); affidavit of Jagtar Singh dated 15.7.2016, (Ex.OP1/9) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has pleaded in the complaint that he is small farmer and his entire family depends on his income i.e. agricultural income. Therefore, he falls within the definition of 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. Other facts are not categorically disputed by opposite parties. The complainant has pleaded that he stored potatoes as mentioned in the complaint. The receipts, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C3) also prove this fact. It is not disputed that when the complainant approached opposite parties to take delivery of the potatoes, same were not delivered and these were found damaged. Opposite parties want to take shelter of the remarks mentioned in the receipts wherein it is shown as 'poor' and 'dagi' (damaged). They have intentionally mentioned this fact. In case, the potatoes were not fit for the storage, opposite parties were not to store the same. The complainant was also not to pay the huge amount as storage charges. Therefore, his claim cannot be denied only for the reason that opposite parties have remarked 'poor' and 'dagi' (damaged) in the receipts. Opposite parties are trying to take shelter under the condition got printed on the backside of the receipts. These conditions are not signed by the complainant. Therefore, he is not bound by these conditions. Moreover as per these conditions also, opposite parties were saved from the loss when the loss was due to some circumstances beyond their control. Some circumstances are also mentioned, which are due to power failure, natural calamity and such type of other circumstances. As such, opposite parties cannot escape from their liability on the grounds mentioned in these terms and conditions also. When the potatoes were admittedly damaged, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands established. The complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs.8000/- as part of advance rent, receipt, (Ex.C8) acknowledges the payment of amount in advance. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited 2012 (3) CPJ 248 Punjab Agri Food Parks Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gurdeep Singh; 1998 (1) CPJ 542 Himalaya Cold Storages & Ors. Vs. P. Lakshminarayan; 2013 (3) CLT 461 Subodh Chandel and Another Vs. The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others; 2004 (2) CPJ 692 Himalaya Food Co. Vs. Dhanpat & Ors; 2008 (1) CLT 592 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar Yadav. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant is required to prove his case by affirmative evidence. No findings can be returned in his favour on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Before claiming any relief from this Forum, the complainant is required to prove himself as 'consumer'. As per complainant, he himself has got stored 264 bags of seeds potatoes with opposite parties and he has also alleged that he has suffered huge loss. Therefore, this fact shows that service of storage of potatoes was for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer'. As per complainant, he went to take delivery and found that the entire lot has damaged. He has relied upon receipts, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C3), although to prove storage of potatoes, but in these receipts, the conditions of potatoes is also recorded as 'poor' and 'dagi' (damaged). Therefore, loss to the stocks was only for the reason that these were in smear/poor condition at the time of storage. Opposite parties have also deposed on oath that the complainant was aware that in case of damage, opposite parties will not be responsible. As per conditions mentioned on the backside of receipts as proved as Ex.OP1/7, opposite parties will not be responsible for any loss due to circumstances beyond their control. Although in these conditions power failure, natural calamity are specifically mentioned, but it is further mentioned that in case of such other circumstances also, opposite parties will not be responsible. The loss to the stocks of the complainant was only due to the fact that the same were in the wet/ damage condition at the time of storage. As such, opposite parties are not responsible for any loss. It is also submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that opposite parties have placed on record gate pass, (Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/6), which prove that there was not any damage to the stock of other persons and the stock of other persons was delivered on 28.10.2015 and thereafter. One Jagtar Singh has also furnished his affidavit wherein he has admitted that he stored his potatoes in the cold store of opposite parties and received the delivery in safe and good condition and damage to the stock of the complainant was only due to the fact that the same were stored in smear condition and under the pressure of agitation by the farmers. As such, it is proved that there was no loss to the other farmers, who have stored the potatoes in good condition. We have given careful consideration to these submissions and gone through the cases law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant. Before coming to the main relief, it is to be seen whether the complainant falls within the definition of 'consumer' or not. Complainant has pleaded in his complaint that he is small farmer and his entire family depends on his income i.e. agricultural income. In case of Subodh Chandel and Another Vs. The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others (Supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed that farmers, who stores his agriculture produce in cold storage for hire, to be taken out at a later point of time for getting in higher return would fall within explanation of Section 2 (1) (d) of 'Act' as a 'consumer' and plea of opposite parties that hiring of cold storage by farmers is a commercial use, was rejected. Therefore, keeping in view the pleadings of the complainant and above observations of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, only conclusion is that the complainant falls within the definition of 'consumer'. Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainant has stored 264 bags of potatoes with opposite parties. Opposite parties have not categorically denied this fact. It is rather pleaded that the potatoes were stored in the damaged condition. This fact further leads to inference that opposite parties have impliedly admitted that the complainant has stored the potatoes. The complainant has produced on record receipts, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C3) issued by opposite parties, which prove that he stored the potatoes as detailed in the complaint with them. He has alleged that the stored potatoes suffered damage due to negligence of opposite parties. Opposite parties have also not disputed that the potatoes stood damaged. The contention of opposite parties is that these were stored in poor condition and complainant is responsible for consequences. Of-course, in receipts, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C3), it is mentioned that potatoes are in 'poor and 'dagi' (damaged) condition, but extent of damage is nowhere mentioned. It is also not the case of opposite parties that at that time the potatoes were not fit for storage. The conditions printed on the receipts issued by opposite parties are proved by them. It is mentioned that the owner will not be responsible, but this condition is in continuation of earlier part wherein it is mentioned that in case of loss of size/weight, owner of cold store will not be responsible. The owner of cold store (opposite parties) was exempted from the loss only when it is due to circumstances beyond their control, but there is nothing to show that the loss is due to circumstances beyond their control. In these circumstances, the contention of opposite parties that it is not negligent/liable for damage is not acceptable. The damage to the stored potatoes amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is entitled to compensation for this loss. Now, point for determination is amount of compensation for which the complainant is entitled to. Opposite parties have tendered into evidence rate list, (Ex.OP1/8), which shows that the rate of potatoes was Rs.350/- per quintile in the month of July 2015; Rs.250/- per quintile in the month of August 2015 and Rs.350/- per quintile in the month of September 2015 and Rs.450/- per quintile in the month of October 2015. The delivery was to be made in the month of June/October 2015 and as per plaint, (Ex.OP1/2) also, the goods were stored up to 31.10.2015. As per rate list, the rate of potatoes is as Rs.450/- per quintile in the month of October 2015. It is also matter of common knowledge that the rate of seeds potatoes is higher side from the rate of ration potatoes. Its rate is assessed as Rs.600/- per quintile. As per receipts, 264 bags of potatoes were stored. The complainant has not mentioned the weight of his bags. It is fairly admitted that the weight of normal bag of potatoes is 40 kg. The total weight of 264 bags of seed potatoes is worked out 105.60 quintile and its value @ Rs.600/- per quintile comes to Rs.63,360/-. The total value of stored potatoes is Rs.63,360/-. The complainant was also to bear (suffer) expenses for the carriage and due to some damage to the potatoes. Rs.6336/- (Apprx.10%) is assessed as expenses on account of carriage/loss of stock. Therefore, net loss of the complainant is assessed as Rs.57,024/-. The complainant was to pay rent charges, which is admittedly Rs.85/- per bag. Opposite party in the plaint, (Ex.OP1/2) has also revealed rent @ Rs.85/- per bag. The total charges for 264 bags is calculated as Rs.22,440/-. The complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs.8000/- as part of advance rent, receipt, (Ex.C8) acknowledges the payment of amount in advance but the amount is not mentioned in clear figures. Counsel for opposite parties is also not able to explain the amount mentioned in this receipt. Moreover opposite parties have not produced any document to rebut this payment. No other record has been produced by opposite parties to prove that the amount received was not Rs.8000/-. Therefore, we accept the version of the complainant that he has paid Rs.8000/- in advance as part of rent. Therefore, this amount is adjustable in the rent amount payable to opposite parties. So, a sum of Rs.14,440/- (Rs.22,440/- - Rs.8000/-=Rs.14,440/-) is payable by the complainant on account of rent charges. This amount is adjustable from the amount payable to the complainant i.e. Rs.57,024/-. Therefore, net loss of the complainant is worked out as Rs.42,584/-. As a result of our above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is impleaded being manager, but opposite party No.1 is owner of firm in question. Therefore, only owner is liable for compensate the complainant. As such, complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. The complainant is held entitled to above sum of Rs.42,584/- with interest @ 12% per annum. The interest is payable from the date of filing of complaint till realization. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 15-12-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
