IMPORTANT POINT
When more than one remedy is available to a party in respect of the same grievance, the party must choose a remedy, and all incidents attached to that remedy must follow.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Mohammad Affan, Advocate holding brief of Shri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar dated 30.04.2010 thereby he has allowed the claim preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 6 with regard to the payment of compensation for the potatoes stored in the warehouse owned by the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm, consisting of four partners and is running a cold storage unit in the name & style of M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-II. It has further been stated that for running the said cold storage the petitioner had obtained the necessary licence/permission from the appropriate authority/Licensing Authority and is doing the business of storing the agricultural produces, which are grown by the local farmers such as potatoes etc. For the year 2008, the petitioner had stored the potatoes, which was brought by the local farmers/respondent nos. 2 to 6 and issued a receipt of deposit. In the said receipt, the conditions were mentioned and also the validity of the said storage. The potatoes are usually are taken out by the farmers till the end of September every year but in September 2008, the rates of potatoes was very low and therefore, respondent nos. 2 to 6 did not turn up to take the potatoes, which continued to be stored in the cold storage owned by the petitioner. It seems that due to the fact that the potatoes were stored for longer length of time, the same were deteriorated and consequently, due to the damage occurred to the said storage, respondent nos. 2 to 6 preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar. On being served a notice the petitioner had appeared before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar but he did not file any written objections. Thereafter the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced by respondent nos. 2 to 6 returned the finding that respondent nos. 2 to 6 had deposited their potatoes in the cold storage owned by the petitioner and also took into account the published rate and its value and the value of bags and accordingly valued the potatoes for all the private respondents. The Forum concluded that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner due to which the potatoes were destroyed and allowed the claim of the private respondents directing the petitioner to pay the value of the goods as per the said judgment. It also imposed cost arising from mental physical and financial loss caused and also the cost of said litigation.

4. In the present petition the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, for the claim with regard to the destruction of potatoes, the same issue has to be dealt under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. Section 24 provides for compensation for loss, destruction etc., while according to Section 25, the dispute regarding the compensation is to be referred to the Licensing Officer.

5. It is stated that the dispute pertaining to destruction of potatoes by the cold storage have to be considered and decided only as per the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. When a pointed query has been made to the petitioner, as to whether despite the fact that he participated in the said proceedings before the District Forum, whether he had raised any objections in this regard or not? The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that though the petitioner participated in the said proceedings but the said objection was never filed or raised by him. Though one