HANDA COLD STORAGE & ANR. vs KULDIP SINGH & 2 ORS.

The complainant, who is an agriculturist, used to store potato seeds with the petitioners. In the season 2008-2009, he allegedly stored 250 bags of potato seeds weighing 50kg each with the petitioners. Later on, only 96 bags were returned to him. Since the petitioners failed to return the remaining bags containing potato seeds, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking re-imbursement of the loss sustained by him, alongwith compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioners, inter-alia, on the ground that only 218 bags containing potato seeds were received by them from the complainant, out of which, 96 bags were returned to him, whereas the remaining 12 bags were sold by him to one Mr. Sudesh Kumar, who took the delivery of the said bags after signing in the ledger maintained by the petitioners. This was also the case of the petitioners that delivery of 122 bags containing potato seeds was given to Mr. Sudesh Kumar on the instructions of the complainant and he was fully aware of the aforesaid delivery.

Vide order dated 06.07.2010, the District Forum, holding that 218 bags containing potato seeds were deposited with the petitioner, out of which 122 bags were delivered to Mr. Sudesh Kumar on his instructions and 96 bags were returned to him, dismissed the complaint.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 04.12.2013, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to him as compensation. It was further directed that if the aforesaid amount was not paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, the petitioners shall also be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they had filed affidavit of Mr. Sudesh Kumar before the District Forum, but no evidence was produced or filed by the complainant to rebut the said affidavit. Admittedly, no written authority was given by the complainant to Mr. Sudesh Kumar to take delivery of 122 bags containing potato seeds from the petitioner. Admittedly, no written instructions were given by the complainant to the petitioners asking them to deliver 122 bags containing potato seeds to Mr. Sudesh Kumar. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence of sale of 122 bags containing potato seeds by the complainant to Mr. Sudesh Kumar. If the petitioners were able to file the affidavit of Mr. Sudesh Kumar in support of its case, there is no reason why they could not have taken from him the invoice evidencing the alleged purchase of 122 bags of potato seeds from the complainant and file the same before the District Forum. In the absence of any invoice evidencing the sale of 122 bags of potato seeds to him by the complainant, no reliance could have been placed upon the oral testimony of Mr. Sudesh Kumar in the form of his affidavit. Admittedly, the complainant had sent notice to the petitioner alleging non-delivery of the balance bags containing potato seeds. No reply was sent to the legal notice of the complainant by the petitioners controverting the allegation made by the complainant.

In these circumstances, when (1) there is no invoice evidencing the sale of 122 bags containing potato seeds by the complainant to Mr. Sudesh Kumar, (2) no written authority was given by the complainant to Mr. Sudesh Kumar authorising him to take the delivery of 122 bags containing potato seeds from the petitioner, (3) no written instructions were given by the complainant to the petitioner requesting it to deliver 122 bags containing potato seeds to Mr. Sudesh Kumar and (4) no reply was sent by the petitioners to the legal notice of the complainant, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted with and the same does not call for any interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

Since, we find no merit in the revision petition, we need not consider the application seeking condonation of delay of 205 days in filing the revision petition. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the revision petition are dismissed.