Uttar Pradesh

StateCommission

A/293/2017

Shakti Cold Storage and Ice Factory - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Krishan Kumar Tewari - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Jaiswal

18 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP
C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010
 
First Appeal No. A/293/2017
(Arisen out of Order Dated 12/01/2015 in Case No. C/232/2009 of District Faizabad)
 
1. Shakti Cold Storage and Ice Factory
Through Prop. Sri Ram Nath Jaiswal M/S Saptrishi Capsek Pvt Ltd Naka Muzaffara Distt. Faizabad
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Krishan Kumar Tewari
S/O Sri Ram Sevak Tiwari R/O Vill. Paarakhani Post Kotdeeh Distt. Faizabad
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 18 Dec 2017
Final Order / Judgement

A/293/2017

      Shakti Cold Store and Ice-cream Factory V/s Krishna Kumar Tiwari

          18-12-2017

          Sri Sanjay Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared.

          None appeared for respondent. Service of notice has already been held sufficient on respondent vide order dated 25-09-2017.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed written arguments.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on application for delay condonation.

The impugned judgment and order is dated 12-01-2015 and appeal has been filed on 10-02-2017. In affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application it has been contended that the copy of impugned judgment and order was received by appellant on 23-01-2015. Thereafter appellant contacted Sri Surendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate for filing appeal and supplied him certified copy of judgment to file appeal.

It has been further contended that Sri Surendra Kumar Shukla informed deponent that appeal has been filed before State Commission but in the last week of January, 2017 when recovery citation was issued by Tehsil against appellant, the appellant tried to contact Sri Surendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate but could not contact him. Thereafter he came to Lucknow and tried to contact him. Then he was informed that Sri Surendra Kumar Shukla is not coming to State Commission for about one year. He has cheated him. Thereafter appellant engaged other Counsel and filed present appeal before State Commission.

None appeared for respondent despite sufficient service of notice to oppose delay condonation application.  The statement made by appellant on oath in affidavit has not been controverted by respondent. Therefore I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of appellant regarding delay in filing appeal.

In view of above delay condonation application is allowed and delay of appeal is condoned.

Admit and register appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal should be disposed of finally on merits today.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

Judgment delivered on separate sheets.

Appeal is allowed in part.

 

                                    President

     STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      APPEAL NO.  293 OF 2017

        (Against the judgment/order dated 12-01-2015 in Complaint Case

               No. 232/2009 of the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad )

Shakti Cold Store and Ice-cream Factory

Through Proprietor Ram Nath Jaiswal

M/s. Saptrishi Capsek Private Limited

Naka Muzaffara

District Faizabad

R/o Daalmandi Fatehganj

District Faizabad

                                                                     ...Appellant/Opposite Party

                                                     Vs.

Krishna Kumar Tiwari

S/o Sri Ram Sevak Tiwari

R/o Village Paarakhani

Post Kotdeeh

District Faizabad

                                                                      ...Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant        :  Sri Sanjay Jaiswal, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :  None appeared.

Dated :   18-12-2017

                                         JUDGMENT

       MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL) 

This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 12-01-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint No. 232 of 2009 Krishna Kumar Tiwari V/s Shakti Cold Store and Ice-cream Factory whereby District Consumer Forum, Faizabad has allowed complaint partially and ordered appellant/opposite party to pay to respondent/complainant Rs.7,950/-  with simple interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of complaint till date of actual payment within 30 days from date of judgment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered appellant/ opposite party to pay to respondent/complainant Rs.4,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel Mr. Sanjay Jaiswal appeared for appellant.

 

:2:

None appeared for respondent despite sufficient service of notice.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

It is contended by learned Counsel for appellant that the price of potatoes fixed by District Consumer Forum is very high and excessive.

It is further contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the rate of interest awarded by District Consumer Forum is also very high.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Consumer Forum has awarded interest on the value of potatoes to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, Rs.4,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum as additional compensation to the complainant is not justified.

I have considered submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant.

The District Consumer Forum has fixed Rs.7,950/- price of 31.80 quintal potatoes at the rate of Rs.250/- per quintal. The price of potatoes fixed by District Consumer Forum appears appropriate and no interference is justified.

The District Consumer Forum has awarded interest at the rate of 9 per annum. The rate of interest awarded by District Consumer Forum appears appropriate.

The District Consumer Forum has awarded interest on the price of potatoes. Therefore, Rs.4,000/- awarded by the District Consumer Forum as additional compensation to complainant/respondent should be set aside and the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum should be modified accordingly.

In view of above appeal is allowed partially and appellant/opposite party is ordered to pay to complainant Rs.7,950/- price of potatoes with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till date of actual payment.

Rs.4,000/- compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum to respondent/complainant is set aside but the appellant/opposite party shall pay to respondent/complainant Rs.2,000/- cost of litigation as ordered by

 

 

:3:

District Consumer Forum.

In this appeal parties shall bear their own costs.

Rs.9,680 deposited by appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted alongwith interest accrued to the District Consumer Forum for disposal in accordance with this judgment.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.

 

                                                            ( JUSTICE A. H. KHAN )

                         PRESIDENT

          Pnt.

 

 

        

 

 

 

        

  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.