IMPORTANT POINT
In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would.

ORDER

These revision petitions Nos. 201 of 2016, 297 of 2016, 298 of 2016, 299 of 2016 & 300 of 2016 have been filed against the separate orders dated 15.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal Nos.273/2012, 274/2012, 275/2012, 595/2012 and 613/2012 respectively.

2. Revision Petition Nos.2758 of 2016, 2759 of 2016 & 2760 of 2016 are cross revision petitions filed against the same impugned order by the original complainants. RP No.2758 of 2016 is cross revision petition of RP No. 297 of 2016. RP No.2759 of 2016 is cross revision petition of RP No.300 of 2016. Similarly RP No.2760 of 2016 is cross revision petition of RP No.299 of 2016.

3. Brief facts in respect of these revision petitions are that the complainants/respondents in RP No.201 of 2016, RP No.297 of 2016, RP No.298 of 2016, RP No.299 of 2016 & RP No.300 of 2016 had put their agricultural commodity as per the following table with the cold storage of opposite party.

4. A fire broke out on 10.6.2006 in the cold storage and there was heavy loss to all the commodities deposited in the cold storage. The complainants filed consumer complaints bearing nos.234/2011 (First 1048/2007), 147/2011 (First 50/2007), 146/2011 (First 51/2007), 1024/2008 & 803/2008 respectively before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Jaipur (in short ‘the District Forum’). The specific brief facts of these cases are as follows:-

RP No.201 of 2016

5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased 220 katta of methi costing Rs.1,44,440/- from M/s. Sha Champalal Jawahar Lal and handed over to the opposite party for keeping under safe preservation in the cold storage on 14.4.2004. The complainant came to know that fire had broken out in the cold storage. Inspite of repeated demands, the opposite party neither returned the goods nor gave its value. Inspite of giving legal notice, the opposite party did not compensate the loss. Therefore the complaint was filed demanding Rs.2,86,000/- as the value of the goods and compensation for other loss. The opposite party pleaded that the goods were kept at the risk of the complainant. The opposite party was neither uncareful nor there was any kind of negligence. The matter was investigated by police and it was found that there was no negligence or mistake but the fire was accidental and could be because of short circuit. Scientist from the FSL visited the site on 18.07.2006 and confirmed the findings of the police investigation. As the complainant did not insure his goods as per the instructions mentioned on the receipt of fees given to the complainant, he himself is responsible for the loss. The complainant has kept the goods for four years with the aim of making profit and therefore he does not come under the definition of “consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was mentioned that the opposite party has committed no deficiency and therefore the complaint should be dismissed.

6. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.1,44,440/- along with 9% interest with Rs.2000/- as cost. The petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal bearing No.273 of 2012 before the State Commission. The State Commission though dismissed the appeal, but awarded Rs.20,000/- additionally to the complainant as compensation. Hence the present revision p