Date of Filing: 14/11/2014 Date of Final Order: 04/09/2015
The complainant, Sri Jiban Krishna Sen, S/o. Sri Nabadwip Ch. Sen has filed the present case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P, The Managing Director, Kaljani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Cooch Behar praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P to pay Rs.2,10,000/- in total as compensation for deficiency in service of the O.P, and other relief(s) as the Forum may deem feet and proper.
The factual matrix of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that on 27/03/2012 the Complainant unloaded 125 quintal of potato in cold storage of the O.P namely Kaljani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. for storing the said potato by vehicle through gate entry pass. After accepting the said potato the O.P has issued one receipt vide Challan No.4417 dated 27/03/2012. Afterwards, at the time of demand of potato the Complainant contact with the O.P in cold storage for taking delivery of the storage potato. But at that time the O.P has refused to deliver the same to the Complainant illegally. Thereafter so many day the Complainant went to the O.P’s cold storage for taking delivery of the said storage potato but to no good and the O.P has harassed the Complainant also misbehave with the Complainant. Then the Complainant issued notice through Lawyer against the O.P for taking delivery of storage potato but in vain. Due to such negligence and deficiency in service the Complainant suffering from mental agony & pain.
Finding no other way the Complainant filed the instant case along with relevant documents before this Forum and prayed for direction to the O.P to pay (1) Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony & pain, (2) Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and (3) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P, The Managing Director, Kaljani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing his written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the Complainant has no cause of action to bring this case and the case is not tenable in law. The main allegation of the O.P is that the Complainant collected the Gate Entry Pass from the Kaljani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. on 27/03/2012 intending to store 125 quintal of potatoes but he never collected any shade entry pass from the cold storage authorities for entry inside the cold storage with this goods. He did neither hand over the potatoes to the cold storage authority for preservation in the cold storage nor was any potato bond issued by the cold storage authority against alleged storage of the potatoes.
The contention of the O.P is that as per paper mentioned by the Complainant is not a Challan at all. It is simply a gate entry pass being the number of the vehicle and serial number viz. 4417 of the gate entry pass as claimed by the Complainant.
This O.P further contended that the Complainant made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar against this O.P in respect of non-delivery of so-called 125 quintal of potato and on receipt of the complaint the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar directed to the Asstt. Director, Agricultural Marketing to make on the spot enquiry and to submit report in respect of the allegation of the Complainant after verify all the relevant documents. Accordingly, the Asstt. Director does the same by submitting this report that the allegation made by the Complainant against the O.P is baseless. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Ultimately, this O.P prayed for dismissal of the case without any costs.
In the light of the contention of the parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Agents of both the parties at a length. Considered the decision cited by the parties.
Point No.2.
It appears from the record that the present case is filed for Rs.2,10,000/- only i.e. far less than the prescribed limit and the Opposite Party is the resident of this district. Thus, this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The above two points are taken up together for convenience of discussion. On perusal the record, evidently the Complainant is a cultivator of Vill. Kholta, Cooch Behar and the Opposite Party is the owner of the Cold Storage.
The case of the Complainant is that on 27.3.2012 the Complainant with a desire to store 125 qtl potatoes went to the Cold Storage of OP and obtained a Gate Entry from the Kaljani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the OP in this case. Though the Complainant was not permitted to store his potato in the OP’s Cold Storage, the Opposite Party has taken plea that the Complainant did not obtain the Shade Entry.
It is the case of the Opposite Party that the Gate Entry pass holders are only allowed to make entry inside the Cold Storage premises and they are given Shade Entry by making necessary endorsement and after fulfilling the necessary formalities, the Bonds are issued to the parties against such storage. The complaint in this case never collected any Shade Entry Pass from the Cold Storage authorities for entry inside the Cold Storage with his goods. He neither handed over the potatoes to the Cold Storage authority for preservation nor he was issued any Potato Bond by the Cold Storage authority.
It is the further case of the complainant that the Opposite Party issued him a Challan vide No.4417 dated 27.3.2012 after receiving 125 qtls. of potato. Due to non-storage of potato in the Cold Storage, the Complainant suffered huge pecuniary loss and made a complaint to the DM, Cooch Behar against the Opposite Party.
It appears from the record that the Complainant by not getting delivery of the previously mentioned alleged quantity of potatoes from the end of the Opposite Party preferred a complaint to the DM, Cooch Behar. The Assistant Director, Agri-Marketing made a spot enquiry directed by the DM and verified all the relevant documents and reported that the allegation of the Complainant is totally baseless. The Opposite Party has filed some original documents by Firisti on 7.7.2015 as specimen copy of Gate Entry, Gate Pass, Shade Entry, Money Receipts and Potato Bond. On the other hand, the Complainant has filed only one Gate Entry dated 27.3.2012 with an endorsement of 125 qtl. (250X50) packets but in the said document, there is no endorsement in the Shade Entry. The Complainant did not file any Money Receipt, Gate pass and Potato Bond. However, one receipt of Ganesh Weigh Bridge dated 27.3.2012 of Vehicle No.WB-73B 0677 is filed by the Complainant does not mean that the Complainant had deposited 125 qtl. Potatoes in the Cold Storage of the Opposite Party.
In the course of argument, the Ld. Agent of the Complainant vehemently argued that the Complainant by taking the Gate Entry went to the OP’s Cold Storage with the Vehicle Bearing No. WB-73-B/0677 and unloaded the vehicle there. The Opposite Party stored the potatoes after necessary formalities but did not issue any Bond, the reason best known to them.
Be that as it may, for the sake of argument if we consider the argument of the Complainant, it is not clear to us that why and how the Opposite Party without issuing any Bond allowed the Complainant to store the potatoes in the Cold Storage of the Opposite Party. We did not find any single document from which it can be concluded that the Complainant stored potatoes in the Cold storage of the Opposite Party.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and the documents made available in the record, we are in considered opinion that the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party has not been proved from the documents supplied by the Complainant.
Point No.1.
It is the case of the Complainant that he intended to store some quantity of potatoes went to the opposite Party with 125 quintals potatoes in a vehicle bearing No. WB-73B 0677 and unloaded the vehicle there. It is pertinent to mention that there is no scrap of papers to show that the Complainant paid certain amount to the Opposite Party to get proper service from the end of the Opposite Party. Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act define “Consumer” as “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.
In the case in hand, we did not find any documents to hold that the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.P. Thus, we are in considered opinion that the Complainant is not the “Consumer” of the Opposite Party.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we constrained to hold that the Complainant has badly failed to prove his case.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present complaint case No. DF 80/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
