Back
2019 Supreme(All) 741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Chandel Cold Storage, Barabanki Thru Partner Dushyant Sin - Appellant
Versus
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. and Others - Respondent
Miscellaneous Single No. 5743 of 2010
Decided On : 17-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Himanshu Suryavanshi, Adv., Sanjay Kr Verma, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Cold Storage - U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 - Section 6, 12-20, 24, 25, 36, 43 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976, including the rights and duties of a licensee, compensation for loss and destruction of goods, and the appeal process. It also addresses the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its applicability to the case, highlighting the definition of a consumer and the availability of statutory remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cold Storage operator, faced a complaint from a farmer stored potatoes in the Cold Storage due to power supply failure. The farmer approached the Consumer Forum, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of its appeal before the State Commission. It emphasized the availability of statutory remedies and the need to adhere to the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition, applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the availability of statutory remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to pursue statutory remedies and highlighted the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pursue its appeal before the State Commission.
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma for respondent no.3.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner runs a Cold Storage and the licence has been granted by the Horticulture Department under Section 6 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act of 1976'). The Act of 1976 is a complete Code for licencing, supervision and control of Cold Storages in the State of U.P.
3. Under Sections 12 to 20 of the Act of 1976, the rights and duties of a licencee like the petitioner have been enumerated. The licencee has to take care of the goods stored in Cold Storage in a reasonable and prudent manner. In case of deterioration of goods or possibility of such deterioration of goods stored by the hirer, steps are to be taken for intimation to the hirer and thereafter Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1976 provide for compensation for loss and destruction of goods stored in the Cold Storage and give a right to the hirer to file a complaint before the licencing officer. Section 36 provides for an appeal to the Tribunal against the order passed by the licencing officer, including an order passed under Section 25 of the Act of 1976.
4. It has been submitted that under the Regulations framed for Cold Storage Tribunal by the State of U.P. in 1978, a complete procedure is provided with regard to the complaints and their redressal. It has been submitted that the goods stored by the respondent no.3 are insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent no.3 as well as other farmers stored their potatoes in the Cold Storage of the petitioner, but due to failure of power supply and mechanical fault in the generator, the supply of electricity was not continuous. Despite all efforts for restarting the Cold Storage Plant, the petitioner could not succeed and, therefore, it informed the District Horticulture Officer, Barabanki for the same and also that it was not possible for the petitioner to maintain the temperature for proper storage of potatoes. The petitioner thereafter circulated a general notice, including one published in the local news paper, but the respondent no.3 did not turn up to reclaim the potatoes stored by him in the petitioner's Cold Storage.
5. It has been submitted that respondent no.3 instead of filing a complaint before the licencing officer and pursuing his remedy under Sections 24 and 25 and thereafter under Section 36 of the Act of 1976, approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Barabanki (for short 'the Consumer Forum'), claiming deficiency in service and the Consumer Forum passed an ex-parte order in favour of respondent no.3, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,55,770/- to respondent no.3.
6. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short 'the State Commission') under Section 15 of the Act and such appeal was entertained and notices were issued on the delay condonation application moved by the petitioner, but a direction was issued to deposit Rs.50,000/- in addition to already deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- for filing an appeal as provided under the Act. There was no interim order granted by the State Commission and, therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court on legal advice, as according to the petitioner, its case was covered by a judgment and order dated 21.8.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.557 (MS) of 2009.
7. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the State Commission in Appeal no.FA-1252 of 2010 and has also impugned the Award of the Consumer Forum dated 11.5.2010.
8. Respondent no.3 has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as simultaneous remedy cannot be availed of, by the petitioner. The petitioner has already filed an appeal before the State Commission, which is pend
