Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The complainant in C.D.C. 489/94 District Forum, Chittoor was filed by one P. Lakshminarayana against M/s. Himalaya Cold Storage represented by its Managing Partner and opposite parties 2 to 5 being the other partners, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,03,686/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 7.6.1994 on account of total loss of potatoes of 73,000 kgs. stores in the cold storage of the first opposite party.

2. According to the complainant, he kept the potatoes weighing 73,000 kgs. in the first opposite party-cold storage from 29.3.1994 to 24.4.1994 and paid the necessary rent, for which the first opposite party issued a receipt. The complainant went on tour from 25.5.1994 to 6.6.1994 and after return from tour he came to know that all the potatoes kept in the cold storage of the first opposite party are spoiled. On verification, the complainant found that his potatoes are all spoiled, the second opposite party promised to pay the value of the potatoes at the rate of Rs. 4/- per kg. as per the market rate i.e. Rs. 2,92,000/- but failed to pay the amount.

3. Alleging that the damage to the potatoes was caused due to over storage of goods and shortage of power and carelessness of the opposite parties, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/ - being the value of potatoes at Rs. 4/- per kg. with interest of Rs. 11/680/- from 7.6.1994 to 30.9.1994 i.e. in all a sum of Rs. 3,03,680/- with 12% subsequent interest.

4. The first opposite party filed a counter on 25.1.1995 denying that the complainant stocked his potatoes weighing 73,000 kgs. in the first opposite party-cold storage between 29.3.1994 to 24.4.1994. The rent for the stock of 73,000 kgs. was fixed at Rs. 51,100/- is correct and admitted the receipt of the said sum on 24.4.1994. They denied that the complainant was away from 25.5.1994 to 6.6.1994. They further stated that the opposite party No. 1 has not over stocked the goods beyond its capacity and that there was no carelessness or negligence on their part resulting in damage to the potatoes of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant never made any demand for the alleged loss and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. To the legal notice issued by the complainant, a reply was sent on 7.9.1994 and they denied the allegation that the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs. 2,92,000/- on 7.6.1994. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had originally stocked 93,250 kgs. of potatoes totalling to 1865 bags of 50 kgs. each between 30.3.1994 to 24.4.1994. Subsequently the complainant took delivery of 23,250 kgs. between 9.6.1994 and 11.6.1994. There was total failure of electricity and it was not restored till 5.6.1994. Consequently several stocks of different persons suffered uniform damage due to lack of power supply including the potatoes of the complainant. The complainant with an ulterior motive did not lift all his stocks between 9.6.1994 and 11.6.1994, but lifted only 23,250 kgs. even though there was larger undamaged stock of potatoes. The complainant also represented that he would claim damages from the Government instead of opposite party. Trusting the words of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 issued a receipt No. 17 anti-dating it to 24.4.1994. But they admitted that they fixed the rent at Rs. 51,100/- for 73,000 potatoes and a sum of Rs. 50,400/- was received towards rent. It is, therefore, submitted that the complainant himself was responsible and negligent by not lifting the available stock which was in good condition between 9.6.1994 and 11.6.1994.

5. According to Condition Nos. 6 and 7 on the reverse of R.R. Receipt, the opposite parties are not responsible for any loss suffered by the complainant, and the complainant should have insured his goods and the opposite parties are not personally responsible for the loss said to have been caused to the stocks of the complainant as the loss was caused due to th