The main legal principle established is the entitlement to compensation for stored goods that were not returned and had grown stale, along with the award of costs for being put to litigation.

Mr. Justice Palok Basu, President––Mr. R.K. Gupta on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Mohd. Wasim Siddiqui on behalf of the respondent have been heard.

2. Maulana Sabir, complainant, went to the District Forum, Bahraich alleging that he had stored 187 bags of potato in 1998 with the appellant Cold Storage which weighed around 160 quintal 82 kg. When the potato bags were sought to be taken back, the appellant intimated that all the potatoes have grown stale. He claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per kg.

3. After proper notice on the appellant, the appellant appeared and time was allowed for written statement, but it was not filed within the time allowed, second time again request was made which was refused and parties were asked to argue the matter. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and examining the material, the District Forum recorded a finding that 187 bags were in fact stored by Maulana Sabir with the appellant cold storage which was not returned to him hence compensation was payable for the said stock which grew stale in the cold storage of the appellant. A further finding has been recorded that since during the course of arguments it was suggested that the rate prevalent as per Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was Rs. 120/- per quintal at the relevant time, hence a decree at the rate of Rs. 120/- per quintal for 160 quintals 82 kgs. potatoes in 187 bags has been decreed which comes to Rs. 19,298.40. An additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded.

4. Mr. R.K. Gupta raised two objections in this appeal. First, time should have been allowed to file written statement even if it was requested for the second time. Second, in the appeal, documents purported to be relevant for the stock of Maulana Sabir has been filed which prima facie should indicate delivery of the potato bags to the complainant Maulana Sabir, but no rebuttal evidence has been filed by the said complainant here in the appeal, therefore, the documents should be relied upon and the decree should be set aside.

5. Mr. Mohd. Wasim Siddiqui has refuted both the arguments. On the first point he said that the very order of the District Forum indicates that both the parties have been heard and it is practicially on agreement that the rate of Rs. 120/- per quintal was prevalent at the time of storage of the potatoes that the said amount has been fixed as the basis for decree. It is true that there is specific mention in the District Forum’s order that Counsel for both parties have been heard.There is no force in the argument of Mr. R.K. Gupta that the appellant has not been heard.

6. Coming to the second point, Mr. Siddiqui said that it has been denied in the objections to the appeal that any such document was ever produced before the District Forum. Since the opportunity to the appellant was available to file document refuting the allegation in the complaint, and no such document was ever filed, filing of some paper purporting to be relating to complainant’s storage is a waste paper. He further contended that the storing of 160 quintals 82 kgs. potatoes by the complainant is proved beyond doubt and its return to the complainant has not been proved at all not was any suggestion made to that effect before the District Forume. In view of this discussion the second argument of Mr. R.K. Gupta also fails.

7. Mr. R.K. Gupta then argued that there was not much time lag between 10.4.1997 when the alleged storage of the potatoes took place and the date of judgment, i.e. 28.9.1998 and, therefore, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is unwarranted. On hearing the Counsel for the parties, it does appear that the compensation in the instant facts of the case was not necessary at all.

8. Coming now to the costs which have not been awarded by the District Forum, there is force in the argument of Mr. Siddiqui that complainant is entitled to costs because he was put to litigation for no fault of the complainant.

9. The appeal, therfore, fails on merits but it i