Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member & Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member
KANWAL COLD STORE—Petitioner
versus
VIJAY KUMAR—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2122 of 1999—Decided on 31.3.2006
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vipin Gogia and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate.
Liability of the proprietor of the cold storage for damage to stored goods due to the collapse of the walls and entitlement of the complainant to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Cold Storage Liability - Liability of Proprietor of Cold Storage - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(q), Section 2(1)(s), Section 2(1)(p) - The court discussed the liability of the proprietor of the cold storage under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, focusing on the definitions and provisions of Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(q), Section 2(1)(s), Section 2(1)(p), and their interpretations, which influenced the court's decision to hold the proprietor liable for the loss due to damage caused to the stored potatoes.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant stored potatoes in a cold storage, and due to the collapse of the walls, the potatoes were damaged. The proprietor of the cold storage claimed that the complainant was not entitled to compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to compensation as the proprietor failed to maintain the requisite temperature in the cold storage, leading to the deterioration of the goods. The court also considered the terms and conditions of the agreement and the actions of the proprietor, ultimately allowing the complaint and awarding compensation to the complainant.
Issues: Liability of the proprietor of the cold storage, entitlement to compensation, and interpretation of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proprietor of the cold storage was liable for the damage caused to the stored potatoes due to the collapse of the walls, and the complainant was entitled to compensation based on the failure of the proprietor to maintain the requisite temperature and care for the stored goods.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay compensation to the complainant along with interest and costs.
Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—The issue to be decided in this case is whether the proprietor of the cold storage is liable to make good the loss due to damage caused to potatoes stored in the cold storage, as result of collapse of the walls of the cold storage. The simple answer is: Yes.
Case of the complainant:
2. The complainant had stored 698 bags of potatoes from 21.3.1997 to 23.3.1997 weighing 80 kgs each at Kanwal Cold Store, Sant Nagar, Gurdaspur with a view to meet the requirement of the army on demand, on such occasions when the prices of potatoes shoot up due to scarcity of the commodity in the market. The complainant received notice dated 19.5.1995 on 24.5.1997 sent by the proprietor of the cold storage through his Counsel to remove the potatoes stored in his cold storage on the plea that the walls of his cold storage developed cracks and require extensive repairs. The complainant went to the cold storage on 25.5.1997 for removal of his potato bags with his personal truck and found that utter confusion was prevailing due to collapsing of the walls of cold storage which took place 15 days before his visit. The potato bags were damaged due to this fall and they were not fit for human consumption and not conforming to the specifications for supply to the army. Complainant had stated that he had purchased 698 bags of potatoes from New Guru Nanak Fruit Company, Moga on 20.3.1997 and 21.3.1997 and spent Rs. 1,57,050 plus transportation, loading and unloading charges which works out of Rs. 225 per bag. The complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the proprietor of the Cold Storage may be ordered to pay Rs. 1,57,050 along with 18% interest and special compensation for mental agony.
Case of the opposite party (M/s. Kanwal Cold Store):
3. The complainant has not paid any consideration for storing potatoes, hence he is not a consumer. Even if any compensation has to be paid it should be granted after deducting Rs. 75 per bag of 80 kgs. each, as rent. The complainant has further stated that the price of potatoes slashed down Rs. 30 to Rs. 40 per bag of 80 kgs. The opposite party filed many affidavits from different farmers who had stored potato seeds in the same cold storage stating that their potato seeds were not damaged and they had lifted the same on receipt of notice from the proprietor of the cold storage.
Orders of the District Forum and State Commission:
4. The District Forum after hearing the parties passed the following order:
The affidavits of such large numbers of persons that potato bags were in good condition on 25.5.1997 and thereafter totally belie the averment of complainant that his potato bags got damaged and potatoes were not fit for human consumption. As complainant failed to lift the potato bags when they were in good condition and when he was called upon to lift the potato bags due to collapse of walls of the cold storage on false plea. We find the complainant failed to discharge his obligation under the agreement of hiring the services of other party for storing the potato bags in the cold storage of other party. Therefore, complainant is found not entitled to any compensation. In light of what is discussed above, the complaint is dismissed. However, complainant is left at liberty to seek his remedy in the Civil Court if so advised. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
5. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties came to the following conclusions:
“In the affidavit of Kanwaljit Singh, there is no mention that he contacted the complainant prior to May 19, 1997 informing of appearance of cracks in the wall or calling upon him to remove the potatoes. Thus, the opposite party has failed to prove that prior to May 19, 1997, any intimation was given to the complainant about he existence of cracks in the walls of the cold storage or calling upon him to remove the
