Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
SURINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
BHOPAL ICE FACTORY AND COLD STORAGE - Respondent
R.B.T. No. 476 of 2008 in Appeal No. 14 of 2002
Decided on : 01-08-2008
Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent
The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish deficiency in services, and compliance with the terms of the contract is crucial in determining liability.
Headnote:
Deficient Services - Cold Storage - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u)] - The court discussed the definitions of 'consumer', 'complainant', 'deficiency', 'goods', 'service', and 'unfair trade practice' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court emphasized the obligations of the cold storage facility as a service provider and the rights of the consumer. It interpreted the terms of the contract and the burden of proof on the complainant to establish deficiency in services. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence to substantiate the deterioration of the stored potatoes and the failure of the complainant to comply with the terms of the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants availed the services of a cold storage facility to store potatoes, but upon retrieval, the potatoes were found to be deteriorated. The appellants filed a complaint alleging deficient services, unfair trade practice, and negligence by the cold storage facility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants failed to prove the deficiency in services by the cold storage facility. It held that the complainants did not comply with the terms of the contract and lacked evidence to substantiate the deterioration of the stored potatoes.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged deficiency in services, unfair trade practice, and negligence by the cold storage facility, as well as the complainants' compliance with the terms of the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to substantiate the deterioration of the stored potatoes and the failure of the complainant to comply with the terms of the contract.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of the District Forum was upheld.
ORDER
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member - This appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Hon'ble National Commission filed against order dated 15.11.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur in complaint case No. 166/4.5.2001. The contextual facts in brief are as under:
As per averments, the appellants/complainants availed the services of OP M/s. Bhogal Ice Factory and Cold Storage, for keeping 570 bags/sacks valued at Rs. 1,19,700. It has been averred that bags/sacks were kept in lots, on dates 19.3.1999, 24.3.1999, 25.3.1999, 26.3.1999 and 9.4.1999, a few by the complainants and some were sent through one Sh. Rattan Singh. As per rate agreed upon, the respondent/OP was to charge Rs. 55 per bag for offering storage facilities for one season till 15.10.1999. The OP after accepting the potatoes in different lots, allotted different marks on the sacks, copies on record vide Annexure C-1 to C-15. It is alleged that after 9.4.1999, the appellants/complainant were never approached by the OP regarding the condition of the potatoes but whenever it was enquired on telephone, they were assured that the potatoes are kept stored in proper condition. It is alleged that on 7.10.1999 the complainants went to the cold store to take out 154 bags of potatoes to be sold to M/s. Amrit Trading Company situated at Una (H.P.), the delivery of the potatoes was given after receiving the rent for the same. It is further averred that OP offered to take the potatoes in question on a trolly against the transportation charges of Rs. 20 per bag. It is further stated by the complainant that after making the payment of Rs. 8,470 for 154 bags they took the delivery in good faith and agreed to get same transported by the OP to M/s. Amrit Trading Company, Una. It is alleged that when the complainants opened the bags in the premises of M/s. Amrit Trading Company, the potatoes in all 154 bags/sacks were found dried, shrunk, deteriorated and not fit for sale in the market due to which the same had to be dumped in the garbage. Thereafter a certificate dated 12.10.1999 was issued by M/s. Amrit Trading Company, certifying the rotten potatoes brought by the complainants. As per case set up by the complainant on 12.10.1999 the OP was approached and the above condition of the potatoes was explained as proved from the certificate issued by M/s. Amrit Trading Company also, but no action was taken by the OP. The remaining 416 bags lying in the premises of the OPs were requested to be shown, the OP refused to give the delivery to the complainants. It is submitted that in spite of repeated reminders by the complainants and also through respectable persons of the village to compensate the loss, the OP has refused to give the delivery of the remaining 416 bags till date. It is alleged that the OP is deficient in services, in addition to being guilty of unfair trade practice and negligence. A compensation of Rs. 3 lacs on account of mental tension, harassment, inconveniences and financial losses have been claimed. It is further prayed that the complaint be accepted with costs in the interest of justice and equity, any other relief to which the complainants are found entitled, may also be granted.
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP, the preliminary objection taken is that complainants have not approached the Forum with clean hands and are guilty of suppressing the material facts and thus not entitled to any relief. It is further pleaded that the case involves complicated questions of law and fact and the complainants deserve to be relegated to the Civil Court where the parties can avail the opportunity to lead detailed evidence to prove their case properly. It is alleged that the complainants are not agriculturists and had kept the potato bags for commercial purpose, thus the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. In reply on merits, the averment of the complainants with regard to they bein
