A/294/2017

Shakti Cold Storage and Ice Factory and another V/s Sant Bux Verma

          18-12-2017

          Sri Sanjay Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellants appeared.

          Sri Trinetra Shanker Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent appeared.

          Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed written arguments.

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

The impugned judgment and order is dated 15-03-2016 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 01-04-2016. 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.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed delay condonation and contended that delay should not be condoned.

Reason shown by appellants for delay in filing appeal appears genuine. As such 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 parties.

Judgment delivered on separate sheets.

Appeal is allowed in part.

                                    President

     STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      APPEAL NO.  294 OF 2017

        (Against the judgment/order dated 15-03-2016 in Complaint Case

               No. 22/2008 of the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad )

01.Manager,Shakti Cold Storage and Ice Factory

      Naka Muzaffara

      Pargana Haveli Awadh

      Tehsil Sadar

      District Faizabad

02.Proprietor Sri Saptrishi Capsek Pvt. Ltd.

     Naka Muzaffara, Faizabad

     Pargana Haveli Awadh

     Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad

                                                                     ...Appellants/Opposite Parties

                                                     Vs.

Sant Bux Verma

S/o Sri Ram Teerath Verma

R/o Village Mirzapur

Post Itaura, Pargana Haveli Avadh

Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad

                                                                     ...Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant        :  Sri Sanjay Jaiswal, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :  Sri Trinetra Shanker Pandey, Advocate.

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 15-03-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint No. 22 of 2008 Sant Bux Verma V/s Manager, Shakti Cold Storage and Ice Factory and another whereby District Consumer Forum, Faizabad has allowed complaint partially and ordered appellants/opposite parties to pay to respondent/complainant Rs.17,270/- within one month from the date of judgment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered that if the above amount is not paid within stipulated period the interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum shall be payable by opposite party from the date of

complaint till date of judgment. The District Consumer Forum has further

:2:

ordered appellant/opposite party to pay to respondent/complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.

Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, appellants/opposite parties have filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel Mr. Sanjay Jaiswal appeared for appellants.

Learned Counsel Mr. Trinetra Shanker Pandey appeared for respondent.

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

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

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

It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Consumer Forum has awarded interest to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum as additional compensation to the complainant is not justified.

Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal and supported judgment of District Consumer Forum.

I have considered submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

The District Consumer Forum has fixed price of potatoes at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per quintal. The appellants have shown judgment rendered by District Consumer Forum in Complaint No. 232/2009 Krishna Kumar Tiwari V/s Shakti Cold Storage and Ice Factory wherein in year 2008 the District Consumer Forum has fixed price of potatoes at the rate of Rs.250/- per quintal.

Considering price fixed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in year 2008, in said complaint I find it just to assess the amount of compensation on the basis of price fixed at the rate of Rs.250/- per quintal. Thus the price of 15 quintal and 60 kg. potatoes kept by

:3:

respondent/complainant in cold storage of appellants goes to Rs.3,900/-. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum should be modified accordingly.

The District Consumer Forum has awarded interest at the rate of 12 per annum. The rate of interest awarded by District Consumer Forum appears very high. It should be reduced to 9% per annum.

The District Consumer Forum has awarded interest on the price of potatoes. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Consumer Forum as additional compensation to complainant/respondent should be set aside.

In view of above appeal is allowed partially and appellants/opposite parties are ordered to pay to complainant Rs.3,900/- price of potatoes  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till date of actual payment.

Rs.5,000/- compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum to respondent/complainant is set aside but the appellants/opposite parties shall pay to respondent/complainant Rs.3,000/- cost of litigation as ordered by District Consumer Forum.

In this appeal parties shall bear their own costs.

Rs.22,020/- deposited by appellants 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.