SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 408

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI
J. Rajendra, Presiding Member, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
BALAJI COLD STORAGE & ICE FACTORY & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
SRI PAL GUPTA – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.319 OF 2018 | REVISION PETITION NO.291 OF 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Namrata Chandorkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Ms. Mahima

Cold storage providers cannot evade liability for stored goods by claiming receipts are informal ('kachi') if they fail to produce official stock registers or books of accounts to disprove the storage.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection - Cold Storage Liability - Evidence of Storage - Reliance on informal ('kachi') receipts is permissible to prove storage of goods if the service provider fails to produce official stock registers or books of accounts to disprove the claim. (Para 12)

(B) Burden of Proof - Defense of Loan - A contention that a consumer complaint was filed to avoid repayment of a cash loan is not probable if the loan is not documented and the provider fails to prove the transaction. (Para 12)

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission regarding the liability of the cold storage for the loss of potato bags based on informal receipts were justified.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding potato storage, subsequent loss, and the initial claims and defenses of the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments concerning the validity of informal receipts and the lack of evidence for the alleged loan. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. burden of proof lies on the service provider to produce official records to disprove informal receipts. (Para 12)
4. dismissal of revision petitions based on concurrent findings of fact by lower forums. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

ORDER

IA No.6221/2018 (in RP No.319/2018) & IA No.6220/2018 (in RP No.291/2018)

For the reasons stated in the respective applications, delay of 38 days and 98 days respectively in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned.

RP No.319/2018 and RP No.291/2018

1. Two separate Revision Petitions have been preferred on behalf of petitioners/OPs before this Commission assailing Order dated 13.09.2017 and 25.07.2017 passed by the learned State Commission arising out of similar facts regarding storage of potato bags with the opposite party on different dates.

The petitioner and respondent hereinafter are referred as opposite party/defendant and complainant, as appearing in the complaint for sake of convenience.

2. Revision Petition No.319/2018 preferred on behalf of the opposite party/defendant assails Order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow in Appeal No.1118/2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the opposite party was dismissed. Thereby Order passed by the learned District Forum directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,04,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.04.2002 till realization along with cost of Rs.2,000/-, was upheld.

3. Revision Petition No.291/2018 preferred on behalf of the opposite party/defendant assails Order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow in Appeal No.1117/2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the opposite party was also dismissed. Thereby the Order passed by the learned District Forum directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,39,850/- with interest @ 9% per annum till realization along with cost of Rs.2,000/-, was upheld.

4. Revision Petition No.319/2018 is taken as a lead case as the disputes and contentions raised on behalf of the parties are similar.

Revision Petition No.319/2018

5. In brief, complainant preferred a complaint before the District Forum-II Moradabad claiming that he had stored 870 bags of potatoes in the godown of the OP-1 (Balaji Cold Storage and Ice Factory) on different dates in the month of March, 2003. The bags of potatoes were to be returned to the complainant in the month of October and November, 2003. Against storage of potatoes, opposite party issued receipts for the rent charged at Rs.56/- per bag. The total cost of the potatoes @ Rs.350/- per bag was approximately Rs.3,04,500/-.

It is further the case of the complainant that on 25.10.2002, when he approached to collect the potato bags, he was informed that the stored potatoes had spoiled due to faulty electric supply and, as such, the bags could not be returned. Since the opposite party failed to return the bags or the cost of the bags in the alternative, complainant was constrained to file the complaint before the learned District Forum.

6. In the written version, opposite parties apart from challenging the maintainability of complaint, denied the storage of potato bags or payment of rent by the complainant. Opposite parties further took a stand that complainant had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh, Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 14.12.2001, 04.03.2002, 04.03.2002 and 12.03.2002, respectively on the condition that complainant would store the purchased potatoes in the cold storage godown and would thereafter pay the loan amount, after selling the potatoes. When the aforesaid loan amount was demanded by OP from the complainant which was paid in cash, complainant assured to ke

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top