Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, RAJEEV MISRA, JJ.
Chakor Cold Storage and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27693 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Adarsh Kumar
Point of law : U.P. Act, 1976 is an Act to govern and control matters relating to cold storages. The issue with regard to deficiency in service and reimbursement of a Farmer due to any loss by cold storages committing deficiency in service is an incidental matter covered by U.P. Act, 1976
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - section 15 - Central Act, 1986 – Claim of compensation - Jurisdiction to entertain – Employment and service - Learned Standing Counsel submitted that U.P. Act, 1976, which is a Provincial enactment, has not been given any Presidential assent, hence cannot override provisions of Central Act, 1986, which is a Parliamentary enactment. He submits that cold storage renders service of storage of crop and charge fee, therefore, a 'Farmer' whose crop is stored in cold storage is a "Consumer", to him, petitioner is rendering a service. If any deficiency in service is found, "Consumer", i.e., Farmer has remedy of claiming damages of compensation under Central Act, 1986 and mere fact that a Provincial enactment i.e., U.P. Act, 1976 is also available, will not denude jurisdiction to DCF under Central Act, 1986 –
Finding of the court : When a specific right is created in a statute and the same statute provides an adjudicatory forum also, the aggrieved person may claim such right before forum under the same statute and not elsewhere but here right to claim damages and compensation has been conferred upon aggrieved person or the Farmer, as the case may be, under both statutes, i.e., U.P. Act, 1976 and Central Act, 1986, therefore, the right to claim damages was conferred by both statutes and forums for adjudication was also provided therein, hence it is open to person concerned to elect the forum where he wants to have his right adjudicated –
Result : Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR AGARWAL AND RAJEEV MISRA, JJ.
1. This writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated 6th July 2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as "DCF") holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain claim of a "Fanner" whose crop (potatoes in the present case) kept for storage in the petitioners' cold storage had damaged and he is claiming compensation.
2. Though order passed by DCF is appealable under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Central Act, 1986") before "State Commission" but learned Counsel for petitioners submits that he has challenged the very jurisdiction, thus alternative remedy would not bar this writ petition.
3. Since a pure question of law has been raised, with the consent of parties, we proceed to hear and decide this matter without relegating petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy and also considering the fact that learned Standing Counsel has not opted and requested for time to file any counter-affidavit but has requested this Court to decide this matter at this very stage.
4. Contention of the petitioners is that they are running a cold storage, namely, M/s. Chakor Cold Storage situate at Saipuri Road Aroon, Police Station, Sirsa Ganj, District Firozabad under a licence obtained under Uttar Pradesh Regulation Cold Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act, 1976') and if there is any damage to the crop stored by "Farmer" in the said cold storage, remedy of compensation has been provided under section 24 of U.P. Act, 1976 by raising a dispute before "Licensing Authority" and, thereafter, a further remedy is provided before a "Tribunal" constituted under section 35. U.P. Act 1976 is a special Act, therefore, it is contended that DCF under Central Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed on Supreme Court's Judgment in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another 2009 (77) ALR 302 (SC) : 2009 (82) AIC 207. It is also argued that service of storage of crop in cold storage for its protection is not included in the definition of "service" under section 2(o) and "Farmer" is not a "Consumer" as defined under section 2(d) of Central Act, 1986, therefore, D.C.F. in the present case has no jurisdiction. In support of above, reliance is placed on Supreme Court's Judgment in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009 (77) ALR 473 (SC) : 2009 (33) AIC 202.
5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that U.P. Act, 1976, which is a Provincial enactment, has not been given any Presidential assent, hence cannot override provisions of Central Act, 1986, which is a Parliamentary enactment. He submits that cold storage renders service of storage of crop and charge fee, therefore, a 'Farmer' whose crop is stored in cold storage is a "Consumer", to him, petitioner is rendering a service. If any deficiency in service is found, "Consumer", i.e., Farmer has remedy of claiming damages of compensation under Central Act, 1986 and mere fact that a Provincial enactment i.e., U.P. Act, 1976 is also available, will not denude jurisdiction to DCF under Central Act, 1986.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. U.P. Act, 1976 was enacted to provide for licensing supervision and control of cold storages in State of U.P. and for matters connected therewith. Statement of objects and reasons clearly provides that Provincial Legislature marked development in cold storage industries in last the decade prior to 1976 which had shown establishment of large number of cold storages in private sector across the State of U.P., particularly in and around the areas which have abundance growth of potato crop. To ensure efficient maintenance of cold storages and to remove hardship to Agricultural Producers, proper control and regulation of the cold storage business was considered necessary in public interest. U.P. Act, 1976 received assent of the Governor on April 16, 1976, publishe
