Haryana

Kurukshetra

230/2017

Mohinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Umri Cold - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Sharma

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 230 of 2017.

Date of Instt. 27.10.2017. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 18.09.2019.

 

1. Mahinder Pal, aged 48 years son of Sh. Mehar Chand;
2. Suresh Kumar, aged 58 years son of Sh. Mehar Chand through its Special Power of Attorney Mahinder Pal both residents of village Manka, P.O. Manki, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. 

 

                                                                        ……….Complainants.

                                        Versus

 

Umri Cold Storage, G.T. Road, Umri, near Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor/ Manager.

 

..………Opposite party.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                     

Present:     Shri C.B. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.           

 Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Mahinder Pal and Suresh Kumar against Umri Cold Storage, the opposite party.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainants are agriculturist by profession and their livelihood and their families livelihood are totally dependent on the agriculture income. On 26.02.2017, the complainants had stored 581 begs (katas) of Potato Seed of good quality namly Kufri Bhar containing 50 Kg. each begs in the cold storage of OP. These potato seed begs were storage after cleaning and after drying the Potato Seed with the Op and receipt No.111 dated 26.02.2017 was issued by the OP the signatures of the authorized agent of the Op in the name of Mahinder Pal. Similarly on 27.02.2017, 349 Potato Seed begs of quality Kufri Bahar were deposited after cleaning and during the same in the cold storage of Op in the name of complainant No.2 Suresh Kumar and receipt bearing No.118 dated 27.02.2017 was issued by the Op with the signature of authorized agent. Similarly on 05.03.2017, 393 and 172, total 565 Potato Seed begs of quality Kufri Bahar were storage in the cold storage of OP in the name of complainant No.2 after cleaning and drying the same and receipt No.211 dated 05.03.2017 and receipt No.213 dated 05.03.2017 were issued by the OP with the signature of authorized agent. All the potato seeds beg were storage in the presence of OP and the OP physically checked the potato seed begs and potato seeds were found in a good condition. The OP was under obligation that the machines of Cold storage shall remain in working. The period of storage of the above said potato seed was upto 31^st October 2017. That total number of potato seed begs which were storage in the cold store of OP are 1495 and these potato seeds was for two crops i.e. ageti, Pacheti crops. It is alleged that the Op was under obligation to keep these potato seed begs in a cool and accurate temperature and the Op was also under obligation. It is further alleged that on 14.10.2017 that the complainant No.1 went to the Cold Storage of the Op for the delivery of potato seeds begs and these begs were taken out from the Cold storage it was found that all the potato seeds were damaged badly and was not even in a condition to remove these potato seeds begs from the cold storage. Not only the potato seeds were become of black colour and in fact these potato seeds were sprouted. On enquiry from the Op no satisfactory answer was given. These potato seeds were damaged badly and sprouted due to the negligence of the Op, as the Op remained failed to create the accurate temperature to protect the potato seed and in this way these potato seeds were damaged and sprouted due to the negligence of the OP. It is further alleged that the complainant No.1 also moved an application to the District Horticultural Officer, Kurukshetra regarding the report of the above potato seeds lying in the cold storage of Op on dated 23.10.2017. The report shall be submitted before this form as and when received by the complainant. It is further alleged that the both the complainant storage the potato seeds with the Op, so that they can showing these potato seeds in the land which is owned by them and also after taking the land nearby on Batai. It is further alleged that the complainant storage the potato seeds begs in total No.1495 and the complainant paid Rs.120/- as rent for full season for each beg for storage in the cold store of Op and in this way the complainant total a sum of Rs.1,79,400/- on 26.02.2017, 27.02.2017 and 05.03.2017. It is further alleged that the total value of potato seed begs was of Rs.13,45,500/- and in this way the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.15,24,900/- on account of paying the rent to the Op and total damaged of potato seed begs. That the op has caused harassment, financial loss and metal agony to the complainant for which the complainant total claims of Rs.19,54,900/-. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding locus-standi, false and frivolous, cause of action, estoppal and concealment of true and material facts. It is stated that to the extent of storage of 581 bags of potato. It is denied that about the quality and seed of said potatoes. It is submitted that the period of storage of potatoes. The total numbers of bags of potatoes are 1313 as per the receipts issued by the Op to the complainants on different dates. The OP complied all the obligations and kept the potatoes seed in a cool and accurate temperature for which the same are still in good condition. It is denied that the complainants never visited the storage of the Op after lifting the potato even after making so many requests for uplifting the potatoes after making the payment of rent. It is submitted that to the extent of moving application to the DHO, Kurukshetra and the complainants never come present at the spot even after calling by the DHO. However, no rent has been paid till today and prayed for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavits Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 and documents Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-40. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Op has tendered into documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.20 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments and the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainants have argued that the complainants stored 1495 bags of potato’s seed @ Rs.120/- per bag in the cold storage of the Opposite party and paid total rent of Rs.1,79,400/- to it on different dates in this regard. It is further argued that on 14.10.2017, the complainants went to the cold storage of the OP for delivery of the potato seed bags, but it was found that potatoes seed were badly damaged and was not even in a condition to remove out from the cold storage. These seed bags were badly damaged due to the negligence of the OP. It is further argued that in this regard, on 23.10.2017, the complainant No.1 moved an application before the District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra (Ex.C-24/R-6). It is further argued that all the documents placed on record by the OP, is procured one. The electricity bill produced by the OP on the record, are on average basis, which shows that the OP was not having proper cooling system in its cold storage, that’s why the potato seed of the complainants were damaged. It is further argued that the inspection report was not prepared by the authorized person and they had not given any notice to them at the time of said inspection. The complainants had stored 1495 bags with the OP, but the inspection report of the department was only regarding 1313 bags. The next point has been argued that the complainants are the farmers and had taken the land on rent and the lease deed is on the case file. By doing so, the OP has committed deficiency in services and prayed for allowing the present complaint. In support of his contention, the learend counsel for the complainants has placed reliance on the cases, titled as Punjab Agri Food Parks Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gurdeep Singh, III (2012), CPJ 248 (NC) and Shalimar Cold Storage & Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Srivastava, II (2013) CPJ, 631 (NC).

7.             The learned counsel for opposite party has argued that no report u/s 13 (1) (C) of the CP Act, as mentioned in the Act, has been filed by the complainants. It is admitted fact that the complainants had stored only 1313 bags of seed in its cold storage. Receipts Ex.C25 to C28 has been tampered by the complainants to show more quantity of seed bags and the OP will produce original of these receipts. Moreover, the complainants themselves made an application to the District Horticulture Officer, Kurukshetra to inspect the potatoes seed bags stored in its storage, but at the time of inspection by the authorized person of said department, they were intentionally not present and the detailed inspection report is Ex.R-1. The receipts Ex.R25 to C28 clearly showed that the complainants have to uplift all the seed bags upto 31.10.2017, but they intentionally not uplift the same on that date, because at that time, the price of the potatoes were very low which is clear from Ex.R-16 & Ex.R-17. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the OP is that the rent was not taken from the complainants by the OP, because in all the cold storage, the rent was taken at the time of lifting the potatoes seed bags and this fact is evident from Ex.R-18. Even the complainants have not given the rent for storage of seed bags and in this regard, the OP had served legal notice Ex.R19 to the complainants and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with special costs. In support of its contention, the ld. counsel for the OP has placed reliance on the case titled as Surinder Kumar Vs. Bhopal Ice Factory and Cold Storage, Appeal No.14 of 2002, date of decision 01.08.2008 (Union Territory Commission, UT, Chandigarh).

8.             The complainants firstly contended that they stored 1495 bags in the cold storage of the OP and paid Rs.1,79,400/- @Rs.120/- per bag to the OP, whereas, the OP contended that the complainants stored 1313 bags in its cold storage. The complainants produced copy of receipts Ex.C25 to C28 showing the quantity of stored bags. But perusal of receipt Ex.C27, it is apparent that this receipt is tampered one as figure “211” has made “393” by cutting with black pen. On the other hand, on the direction of this Forum, the OP produced original record of receipts Ex.C25 to C28 as Mark A to Mark D. On perusal of Mark C, it is evident that the correct figure is “211” instead of 393 and the total of all receipts comes to 1313 bags i.e. 581+349+211+172. Moreover, the complainants had not produced any receipts of money of Rs.1,79,400/- paid to the OP, on the case file. Meaning thereby, the complainants had stored 1313 bags with the OP, so this contention of the complainants has no force, hence rejected.            

9.             The OP further contended that as per agreement, the complainants have to uplift all the seed bags upto 31.10.2017, but they intentionally not uplift the same on that date, because at that time, the price of the potatoes were very low. In this regard, the OP produced copy of newspapers of Kurukshetra Kesri and Dainik Bhaskar dated 02.11.2017 as Ex.R16 & Ex.R17 and from the perusal of said newspapers that at that time, rates of the potatoes were very low and due to that, the farmers were not lifting their potatoes stored in the cold storage, as is similar in the present case. 

10.            From the perusal of declaration issued by Haryana State Cold Storage Association (Regd), Kurukshetra (Ex.R18), it is established that all the owner of the cold storage do not receive the rent for storage of items in advance, rather received the same  at the time of uplifting the items from their respective cold storage. So, this contention of the OP that the OP had not taken the rent from the complainants, has force, because, since the complainants had uplifted the potatoes seed bags from its cold storage, therefore, question for paying the rent to it, does not arise at all. 

11.            The complainants further contended that they moved an application before the District Horticultural Officer, Kurukshetra on 23.10.2017 (Ex.C24) for inspection of damaged potatoes seed bags, but the inspection was not made in their presence. However, it is pertinent to mention here that after moving the application, it is the duty of the complainants to contact the said authority time to time for the inspection, but in this case, the complainants have not produced any document to show that they had contacted the said department for inspection of potatoes in question. Moreover, the District Horticultural Officer, Kurukshetra had written a letter dated 08.11.2017 to the complainants regarding the said inspection. Alognwith the said letter, copy of Inspection Report dated 02.11.2017 was also sent to the complainants.

12.            Now coming to the moot point that whether the potatoes seed bag stored in the OP cold storage were damaged or not?. The complainants have to uplift all the seed bags in question from the storage of the OP upto 31.10.2017. From the perusal of Inspection Report dated 02.11.2017 (Ex.C-17/C-12), it is crystal clear that the said inspecting team had not found 1313 bags of potatoes damaged (sprouted, damaged, rumple or black coloured). No other point is raised or discussed. It is a settled principle of law that there the complainant has to stand upon his own legs to prove his case but in the present case the pleas taken by the complainants are neither supported by any oral evidence nor supported by any documentary evidence. The case law laid down by the OP is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainants had stored 1313 bags of potatoes seed with the OP cold storage, but they neither uplift the same nor paid the rent in this regard to the OP. Hence, we found no deficiency on the part of the OP in rendering services to the complainants.

13.            In view of the above, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.           

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:18.09.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.