The Complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps. and praying for the  following relief / reliefs:-                                                                 

1. Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 13,32,000/- ( Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Only) to the complainant for the damage of potato due to gross mismanagement, lack of proper care, custody and poor nourishment by the O.P. with regard to the storage of Potatoes.

2. Direction against the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the loss incurred due to cultivation of Potato.
3.  Direction against the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) to the Complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with mental agony, pain, harassment caused to the Complainant.
4. Direction against the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards cost of legal proceedings.  
5. Direction against the O.P to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the Complainant accrued on the awarded amount till making payment.
6. Any other relief/reliefs. 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That, the Complainant is a farmer by occupation, cultivating potato in his own land as well as on lands on lease and under Barga.
2. That, the Complainant has produced Potato after taking from Proforma O.P. No. 2 under Kishan Credit Card amounting to Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only).
3. That, the Complainant on 10/11/2019 Purchased fertilizer of Rs. 48,400/- and Potato seeds of Rs. 81,000/- ( Rupees Eighty One Thousand Only).
4. That, the Complainant after production of Potato hired space at Sri Ram Agro Cold Storage and deposited 600Bags of Potato containing 50 Kgs per bag on 16.03.2020 to 21.03.2020  and the Complainant take Back 100 Bags from the O.P. on 17.06.2020 and 25.11.2020. That since 16.03.2020 the personnel of the O.P. committed error at the time of storing potatoes regarding the name of Bond Holder and on 16.03.2020 the name of Amrit Das was written instead of Arun Roy (Complainant) in Bond No 024.
5. That same was committed error in bond No 033 & 034 dated 17.03.2020,   19.03.2020 and the name of Gopal Roy was written instead of the name of Complainant.
6. That, the personnel of the O.P. erroneously written down the name of the Bond holder in the money receipt dated 25.11.2020 being serial No. 2440 and the name of Amrit Das was written instead of the Complainant. The Complainant brought the matter to the notice of the O.P. Since 16.03.2020 to 25.11.2020 for necessary correction in the money receipt and name of the Bond holder.
7. That, on 17.06.2020 the Complainant brought back 50 Bags of Potato against Bond No. 024 dated 16.03.2020 from the custody of the O.P. and the Complainant sold the same.
8. That, the local purchaser told the Complainant that the sold Potatoes were found damaged and refunded the same and the Complainant was compelled to refund the price of Potato.
9. That, on 30.06.2020 the Complainant went to the O.P. and got information that the storage Potatoes got damaged/he informed the matter to the Manager of the storage/ the Complainant deposited Potatoes in the storage in good condition and the same was received by the O.P. after necessary inspection.
10. That, due to mismanagement, defective storaging 566 Bags of Potatoes and 100 Bags of Potatoes being taken back by the Complainant got damaged.
11. That, the Complainant sent letter to the O.P. on 06.11.2020 which was duly received by Sanjoy Sharma but made no reply.
12. That, the Complainant lodged a Complaint on 04.08.2020 to the ADA, Marketing Division and inform the same to the D.M. Jalpaiguri SDO, Jalpaiguri, BDO Jalpaiguri, Sabhadhipati of Jalpaiguri Zilla Parishad, Prodhan of Boalmari Nandanpur GP, Jalpaiguri intimating his loss and grievances.
13. That, the Complainant was advised by the administrative authorities to meet ADA Marketing Division for appropriate relief. The Complainant went there so many times but of no result.
14. Thereafter the Complainant was informed from the ADA Marketing Division that, some samples of Potatoes were taken from the custody of the O.P. and sent to Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalay, Coochbehar for test report.
15. That, subsequently test report dated 15.10.2020 was handed over and from that report it was seen that the samples of potatoes were sent to Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla for confirming damage and CPRI sent a report which was not specific, contradictory.
16. That, the Pro-OPGurupada Sarkar Cultivated Potato and stored the same at Jalpaiguri Cold Storage for preservation which was not get damaged.
17. That, the O.P. sent three letters dated 19.11.2020, 04.12.2020 and 25.12.2020 to the Complainant alleging as if the Complainant storaged rotten potatoes but the same was denied by the Complainant.
18. That, the Complainant cultivated potatoes in 272 Decimals of land and expenditure for cultivation was of Rs, 3,27,050/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Fifty Only).
19. That, the Complainant deposited the said 666 Bags of  Potatoes with the O.P. in the month of March 2020 and on 17.06.2020 he  had taken 50 Bags in his hand, on 25.11.2020 he also had taken 50 bags of  Potatoes for sale in the open market which also found damaged and 666-100= 566 Bags are lying in the custody of the O.P.
20. That, due to poor nourishment of the deposited by the OP the same  got damaged and that’s why the Complainant sustained monetary loss.
21. That, due to lack of proper care, custody and poor nourishment by the O.P. the Complainant sustained loss of Rs. 13,32,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Only) and the O.P. is responsible for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.
22. That, the cause of action of this case arose on 16.03.2020, 17.03.2020, 18.03.2020, 19.03.2020 and 21.03.2020 when the Complainant deposited potatoes to the O.P. which is till Continuing.

In support of the Complaint the Complainant has filed the following documents:-

1. A Photocopy of  Kishan Credit Card with Passbook bearing Account No 2565008800007827 dated 08.01.2015;
2. A Photocopy of Cash memo dated 10.11.2019;
3. A Photocopy of Bill bearing no 103 dated 10.11.2019;
4. A Photocopy of KANCHA RASID of bonds, dated 16.03.2020;
5. A Photocopy of KANCHA RASID of bonds, dated 16.03.2020;
6. A Photocopy of KANCHA RASID of bonds, dated 17.03.2020;
7. A Photocopy of KANCHA RASID of bonds, dated 18.03.2020;
8. A Photocopy of KANCHA RASID of bonds, dated 19.03.2020;
9. A Photocopy of KANCHA RASID of bonds, dated 21.03.2020;
10. Photocopy of communication dated 04.08.2020 received by DM.
11. Photocopy of communication dated 04.08.2020 received by BDO.
12. Photocopy of communication dated 04.08.2020 received by ADA Jalpaigiri Sadar.
13. Photocopy of communication dated 04.08.2020 received by Jalpaigiri zilla Parisad;
14. Photocopy of report of laboratory testing of Potato sample dated 15.10.2020;
15. Photocopy of communication dated 06.11.2020
16. Photocopy of letter dated 19.11.2020;
17. Photocopy of received dated 25.11.2020;
18. Photocopy of certificate issued by Pradhan, Boalmari Nandanpur G.P. Jalpaiguri dated 27.11.2020
19. Photocopy of letter dated 04.12.2020;
20. Photocopy of declaration made by Gurupada Sarkar;
21. Photocopy of Notice Dated 26.12.2020.

Notice was issued from this Commission for servicing the same upon the O.Ps. On receipt of notice the OPs are appeared before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed written version, denied all the material allegations of the Complainant and has stated that the complainant has filed this case on some false allegation by suppressing the actual fact and he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In the W/V the OP has stated that, the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact/ the complainant has no cause of action to file this case against the OP / the complaint has impleaded the OP in the present complaint with an ulterior motive only to harass him and to derive unlawful pecuniary gain from the said OP/ This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant case/ the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties/ the complainant did not implead Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla, Assistant Director of Agriculture , Marketing ( Administrative) and the local purchaser to whom the complainant sold the damaged potatoes which has been mentioned in Para No. 7 of the plaint and those persons are vital and their interest is being involved for proper adjudication of this case. The OP has also stated that, the statements made in Para No. 1 to 4 are matter of record, Para No. 5 is partly true, and the complainant falsely stated that, OP Personnel erroneously written down the name of bond holder as Amrit Das, in Bond No. 24 dated 16.03.2020 and Gopal Roy in Bond No. 34 & 33 dated 17.03.2020 and 19.03.2020 instead of complainant’s name, rather the complainant has deposited only 200 bags of potatoes in the cold storage of the OP on 16.03.2020, of which 100 bags vide Bond No. 035 and on 21.03.2020 rest 100 bags vide Bond No. 032 and save and accepted those 200 bags of potatoes, the complainant did not deposit any potatoes for his own in the cold storage of the OP. The OP has also stated that, the statement made in the Para No. 6 and 7 of the complaint are matter of record, Para No. 8 is self contradictory as well as fabricated, Para No. 9 is matter of record, Para No. 10 is not within the knowledge of the OP, Para No. 11 is true and admitted by the OP, Para No. 12 of the plaint is self contradictory. The OP has also stated in the W/V, that the statement of Para No. 13 is matter of record and the OP cold storage is one of the leading and well reputed cold storage of Jalpaiguri having storage capacity of 3,14,000 packet of potatoes and in the year 2020 save and accept the present complainant no one made any complaint for damaging any potatoes in the cold storage of the OP and in fact no potatoes have been damaged in the said cold storage. The OP has also stated in the W/V that, the statement made in Para No. 14, 15 are matter of record, Para No. 16 to 19 are not correct and disputed by the OP and the complainant is bound to prove those statement before this Commission and the OP company was no way responsible for storing potatoes of the complainant. The OP in the W/V  (Para No. 23) has stated that, the complainant has filed this case by concealing the actual fact with an intention, not only to harass the OP but also to take some monetary benefits from the OP and also with an intention not to pay the storage rent which he was bound to pay and as such there was no cause of action to file the case and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. By filing the W/V the OP has prayed for dismissal of this case.

On receipt of notice, Pro OP No. 3 has also appeared before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed W/V and denied the allegation of the complainant and has stated that, the said OP is a professor at Department of Plant Pathology, under Uttarbanga Krishi Viswavidyalay, under Coochbehar. During mid of May 2020 telephonic communication was received from the Department of Agriculture marketing from Jalpaiguri Division regarding potato tuber problems from few cold storages with whatsapp messages to the Pro OP and getting through the messages it was quite difficult to identify  the case since the tubers were apparently normal from view of external surface. The POP No. 3 has further stated that, Marketing Department sent the sample to Uttarbanga Krishi Viswavidyalay and during 1^st week of  June 2020 on examination he did not find any definite microbial structures under microscope even bacterial oozing was not there from the cut-tubers and  in the Viswavidyalay there was no advance facilities for identification of viruses as well as to some extent for bacteria, upon searching literature he found similar type of symptoms might be due to Fusarium dry rot/ late blight/ tobacco rattle virus/ potato mop top virus. It is also stated in the W/V of the POP No. 3 that, in the cold storage, major problems that occurs in bacterial soft rot where the pathogen comes from field through damaged tubers and aggravates in storage if either not graded properly before packaging and/ or due to overloading in the chambers and it is also stated in the W/V that, the other major issue i.e  black heart is specially a physiological disorder due overloading and poor maintenance of cold storage. It is also stated in the W/V that, tubers samples from three cold storages, of Dhupguri Cold Storage, Harimandir Cold Storage and Shree Ram Agro Storage Pvt. Ltd. (OP No. 1) and showing similar type of damages and the extent of damage was 90-100% and he contacted Dr. Asish Chakraborty, Professor and Pathologist AICRP on potato, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalay, Mohanpur Nadia, he also got confused, with the photographs and hague the Pro OP No. 3 to contact with Central Potato Research Institute, Government of India, Shimla and sample with similar type of symptoms were sent to CPRI on 26.06.2020 and he  collected information therefrom and stated that, the primary cause of brown spot is storage of calcium in the soil which results in the lost of integrity of cell membrane and cell walls under stressed conditions and internal brown spot can also be develop during storage if the calcium content is low and if the tubers were harvested under high temperature conditions. Pro OP No. 3 in support of his W/V files some documents including Letter dated 30.05.2020 (Annexure I ) , Photograph of Potato ( Annexure II) , Letter dated 26.06.2020 ( Annexure III) , Copy of Mail dated 11.09.2020 ( Annexure IV) , Copy of Report of ACAR          (Annexure V), Copy of Mail dated 11.09.2020 made to ADM, Jalpaiguri (Annexure VI ),  Copy of Letter dated 13.10.2020 made to ADM (Annexure VII).

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the complaint filed by the Complainant, W/V filed by the OPs, documents filed by the parties and other materials in record, the following points are taken to be consideration by this Commission.

Points for consideration :-

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 2019?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought?                                             

                 Decision with reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

In order to prove the case the complainant has filed written evidence in the form of an affidavit. In the written evidence the complainant has stated and corroborated the statements made in the written complaint. In the written deposition the complainant has specifically corroborated on which day he stored potatoes in the cold storage of the OP and also stated on which day he brought back potato bags from the OP and sold the same in his local market. He further stated that, after selling the said potatoes the local purchaser informed him that the said potatoes were found damaged or spoiled and purchaser refunded those potatoes and compelled the complainant to refund back the amount of money which was taken by the complainant from the said purchasers. The Complainant has also corroborated in his evidence that he informed the matter to the OP asking for compensation but he refused to pay the same, he also informed the matter to ADA, Marketing Division, lodged a complaint on 04.08.2020 informed the matter to DM, Jalpaiguri, SDO Jalpaiguri, Sabhadhipati of Jalpaiguri Zilla Parishad, Panchayet Pradhan disclosing his loss and grievances and also seeking for redress. The complainant has also stated that, due to gross mismanagement, lack of proper care, custody and poor nourishment by the OP, he sustained monetary loss owing to damaging of storage potatoes which he sold in open market and when he intimate the OP by asking for compensation who refused and the same is undoubtedly is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the complainant argued that, the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP not only by filing written evidence but also by producing several documents. Ld. Advocate of the complainant also argued that, the test report of the potatoes which was filed on the side of Pro OP No. 3,  it proves the case of the complainant where it was clearly ventilated that, at the time of storage of potatoes it became damaged. Ld. Advocate of the complainant further argued that, due to proper care as well as poor nourishment of the storage potatoes the same became damaged in the cold storage of the OP causing a great financial loss to the complainant which the OP did not informed the said fact to the complainant in time.

Ld. Advocate of the OP files BNA wherein it is specifically denied the allegations of the complainant. At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the OP argued that, by suppressing the material fact, the complainant has filed this case to evade payment of rent for storageing potatoes with the OP and for extorting compensation amount from the said OP knowing fully well that he had no cause of action in filing of this case. It is further argument of the OP is that, the complainant had deposited only 200 bags of potatoes in the cold storage of the OP on 16.03.2020 vide Bond No. 035 (100 bags) and on 21.03.2020 vide Bond No. 032 (100 bags) and except those 200 bags of potatoes the complainant did not deposit any potatoes for his own to the OP. It is further argument of the OP is that, the cold storage of the OP is one of the leading as well as reputed cold storage of Jalpaiguri having capacity of 3,14,000 packet of potatoes and in the year 2020, except the complainant , no one had any complaint for damaging any potatoes with the OP. He further argued that the complainant has not been able to prove the case against the OP and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. 

At time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the Pro OP No. 3 argued that they have already collected report from the ICAR, Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla from Dr. Asish Chakraborty, Professor and Pathologist ACRP of Potato, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalay, Nadia and submitted the same with their written version. At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the POP No. 3 fairly submits that, the reports which they have already collected and submitted with the W/V clearly disclosed the reasons for damage of potatoes during storage of the same in the cold storage.

Having heard the Ld. Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the entire record it reveals that, to prove this case the complainant has filed Written evidence supported by some documents. But the OP did not challenge the written deposition of the complainant which he filed in the form of an affidavit. Not only the OP did not file any evidence to falsify the case of the complainant but also they did not cross examine the complainant by putting questionnaires. On the other hand from the W/V as well as from the BNA it is admitted by the OP that, the complainant deposited 200 bags of potatoes in the cold storage of the OP through Bond No. 035 dated 16.03.2020 and Bond No. 032 dated 21.03.2020 containing 100 Bags X2 = 200 Bags of potatoes. Moreover, the complainant himself filed evidence in the form of an affidavit where he specifically stated that, when he get back 50 bags of potatoes from the cold storage of the OP and sold the same in the local market to the purchaser and after some days those purchasers compelled the complainant to return back the sum of money which they gave to the complainant at the time of purchasing potatoes on the grounds that the potatoes which were sold to them are damaged.

From the record, it further reveals that, not only the complainant himself claims that, the storage potatoes got damaged in the cold storage of the OP but also the Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla submitted their report stating that, internal brown spot can also be develop during storage if the calcium content is low. From the report of the CPRI it is safely presumed that, the potatoes got damaged due to proper care and poor nourishment of the deposited potatoes in the cold storage of the OP the same got badly damaged.

The complainant in his complaint as well as written evidence has claimed that, he deposited 666 bags of potatoes containing 50 kg per bag in the cold storage of the OP which he claims became damaged due to poor nourishment in the cold storage of the OP. But the complainant did not produce documents in support of his claim that he himself deposited 666 bags of potatoes in the cold storage of the OP. On the other hand, the complainant filed documents wherefrom it is proved that, he deposited 200 bags of potatoes in two phases which is also admitted by the OP.

From the documents submitted by the complainant it is also established that, the complainant wrote several complaint with the Administrative Authorities including the OP seeking redressal.

Considering the unchallenged evidence of the complainant and considering the documents filed by the complainant as well as admission of the OP and considering the report of the CPRI, Shimla we are of the view that, there was clear deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP who failed to keep/ store 200 bags of potatoes of the Complainant  properly and thereby the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Hence, it is therefore,

 O R D E R E D

The instant Consumer Case being no. 02/2021 is hereby allowed on contest against the OP (The Manager Sri Ram Agro Storage Pvt. Ltd.) but in part. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for damage of 200 bags of potatoes @ Rs. 400/- per bag. The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the complainant towards deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice including cost of legal proceedings. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The OP is directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which he will have to pay interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f from this day till making payment of the entire amount and in that case the complainant will have the liberty to take proper steps against the OP as per law. 

  Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.