Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
K-Star Rural Farmer Warehouse – Petitioner
versus
N. Anki Reddy and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.706 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 30/04/2021 in Appeal No. 117/2018 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 22.10.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Osama Suhail, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Non-delivery of paddy to Respondent/Complainant amounts to deficiency in service on part of Petitioners.
2) Revisional powers of National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order.
3) Settled proposition of law of evidences that party alleging a fact is duty bond to prove that fact by producing evidences on record
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Revision Petition – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Against the Order dt. 30.04.2021 of the State Commission - Deceased respondent/complainant had stored paddy and maize in petitioner’s warehouse & took loan from Respondent no.2 bank, pledged paddy and maize lying in the warehouse of the petitioner through original receipt/ware house bond – After clearing loan amt, Respondent approached petitioner and bank several times for release of stored goods but the same were not released – Complaint filed before the Distt. Forum along with criminal complaint filed with the local police station – Distt. Forum, on findings deficiency of service on part of Petitioner no. 1 and 2, directed them to either handover 95.760 Mt./1260 bags of paddy price value of commodity per quintal Rs.1,500/- in total Rs.14,36,400/-, with the Respondent to pay the warehouse charges – Appeal filed by Petitioners before State Commission & it held that non-delivery of paddy to respondent complainant amounts to deficiency in service – Findings of this Commission: Non-delivery of paddy to Respondent/Complainant amounts to deficiency in service on part of Petitioners - Revisional powers of National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order - Findings on facts which are concurrent in nature cannot be disturbed unless it is shown that impugned order is perverse, illegal or against settled proposition of law - Settled proposition of law of evidences that party alleging a fact is duty bond to prove that fact by producing evidences on record - Petitioner has not produced any substantive evidence to prove contentions raised by it - Clear that Respondent/Complainant deposited original receipt against goods lying in petitioner’s warehouse with the bank while taking the loan - If the bank itself stated it had not released receipt to Respondent/Complainant, there was no occasion for Respondent/Complainant to present receipt to petitioner and take away stocks. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 & 12)
Result: Revision petition having no merit, dismissed in limine.
ORDER
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the complainant and DENA Bank, respondent nos.1 & 2 respectively. The complainant had since expired and is now represented through his legal heirs. The present revision petition has arisen out of the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( for short, the State Commission) dated 30.04.2021 in Appeal No. 117 of 2018, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kurnool (in short, the District Forum) dated 28.12.2017 was confirmed. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.12.2017 in CC No. 110 of 2016 had directed the petitioner and respondent no.2 jointly and severally liable to release 95.760 Mt./1260 bags of paddy commodity of the complainant or to pay price value of commodity per quintal Rs.1500/- in total of Rs.14,36,400/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of discharge of loan dated 30.01.2016 to till the date of realization and further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- as a costs of the case to the complainant. The complainant was directed to pay the warehouse charges to opposite party No.1 from the date of deposit to till the date of delivery of paddy commodity.
2. The brief facts of the case are that deceased/complainant had stored the paddy and maize in the petitioner’s warehouse. He took the loan from respondent no.2 and pledged his paddy and maize lying in the warehouse of the petitioner with the bank. At the time when the paddy was stored in the warehouse of the petitioner, who is in the ware house business, he had issued a receipt acknowledging such storage. At the time of sanction of loan by respondent no.2, the original receipt / ware house bond was pledged with the bank. The complainant cleared the loan amount with the bank on 24.06.2015. On repayment of the loan, the complainant asked the bank to release his commodity and bank informed the complainant that it would send the original stock receipt and lien lifting letter to the petitioner. When he approached the petitioner, he was informed that bank had not sent any information regarding release of the stored goods of the complainant. He again approached the bank and the bank officials again informed the complainant that they had already sent receipt and lifting letter. The bank, thereafter, on 31.05.2016, issued a statement of account and a letter dated 31.05.2016 containing the statement that the commodities were lifted by the petitioner and was delivered to them in their presence and the original bonds were destroyed. Despite the fact that the complainant approached the petitioner and the bank several times for the release of his stored goods with the petitioner, same were not released to him and with these allegations he had filed the complaint.
3. The stand of the petitioner before the District Forum in its written statement was that the complaint had been filed on behest of some advocate and that a criminal complaint was also got registered by the petitioner on 24.03.2016 in Atmakur Police Station and was registered as Crime No. 55/2016. His stand was that complainant had taken away the stock on 24.06.2015 through a lorry vehicle bearing no. AP21 W 1659, AP21 X 3114, AP21 TT 1499, AP21 V 9599, AP04 V 9975, AP21 W 3188 and again on 25.06.2015 through lorry bearing no. AP21 TT 7479. On these contentions, it had been contended by the present petitioner that there was no deficiency in service and the goods of the complainant had been released to him on the above dates.
4. The bank had also filed its written version. The bank had admitted the deposit of the original storage receipt by the complainant at the time when the loan was released to him towards pledge of his goods lying in the godown of the petitioner. It is also admitted that on 24.06.2015, the complainant had partially made payment towards the loan and the bank, thereafter,
