JAWAHAR COLD STORAGE AND ICE FACTORY vs PRAMOD KUMAR

THIS order will govern the disposal of 128 revision petitions bearing Nos. 1969 to 2096 of 2002 which arise out of the same order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 22. 2. 2002.

COMPLAINT Case No. 143/97 filed by Pramod Kumar, one of the respondents/complainants out of which Appeal No. 1256/2000 arose, was treated as the lead case by the State Commission. Respondents in each of these revisions had stored various quantities of potatotes after paying rent in the cold storage of the petitioner/opposite party between May to June, 1997. Respondents alleged that sometime in July, 1997 the potatoes stored by them had rotten as the petitioner did not get the requisite power supply. Respondents were, thus, put to loss of the value of the potatoes. The owner of petitioner cold storage misbehaved with the respondents and refused to pay the value of stored potatoes. Respondents filed separate complaints which were contested by filing written versions by the petitioner. It was alleged that entire record of the cold storage had been sealed by the District Administration and in absence thereof, effective written versions cannot be filed; District Forums had no jurisdiction to try complaints as the potatoes were stored in cold storage for commercial purpose. It was further alleged that the potatoes of respondents were stored under pressure from the District Administration; potatoes stored had got heated and were unfit for storing purposes; despite service of notices sent under certificates of postings the respondents did not lift their damaged potatoes and under Section 25 of U. P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur as Licensing Officer has determined the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents arbitrarily by the order dated 26. 2. 1998 against which the petitioner has filed appeal before the State Tribunal on 25. 3. 1998. It was further stated that respondents'' claims are exaggerated and in the year 1997 there was bumper crop of potatoes and price of potatoes per quintal was ranging between Rs. 20 to Rs. 40. The District Forum had allowed the complaints with direction to the petitioner to pay compensation @ Rs. 140 per quintal along with interest @ 12% p. a. and Rs. 20 as cost of per jute bag to the respondents. However, storage charges deposited in advance with the petitioner by the respondents were not to be returned to them. Vide said order dated 22. 2. 2002 the State Commission reduced the compensation from Rs. 140 to Rs. 100 per quintal and cost of gunny bag from Rs. 20 to Rs. 10. Rest of the order of the District Forum was maintained. Fora below held that the complaints were maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986; order of Licensing Officer dated 26. 2. 1998 against which the petitioner has filed appeal, will not come in the way in passing award as respondents were not the parties in the proceedings which the petitioner has filed appeal, will not come in the way in passing award as respondents were not the parties in the proceedings which culminated in the passing of the order dated 26. 2. 1998; even if the records of the petitioner were seized by the District Magistrate, the petitioner had not filed any documentary proof to show that it had made any application for return of that record and concerned authority refused to return it and petitioner must be having copies of the documents necessary for drafting and filing the written version; petitioner was deficient in service in not maintaining the generator sets which could be used in the event of electricity failure and requisite temperature in the cold storage was not maintained by the petitioner. Fora further held that the respondent had not received any intimation under certificate of postings from the petitioner in regard to potatoes having been damaged and for removal thereof from the cold storage. The State Commission in reducing the compensation from Rs. 140 as awarded by the District Forum to Rs. 100 per quintal took note of the fact that in large number of matters it had determined the price of potato at Rs. 100 per quintal which was also supported by the record of Marketing Board.

In this batch of revision petitions main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. S. K. Sharma for petitioner was that in the year 1997 there was bumper crop of potatoes and price was not more than Rs. 20 per quintal at the time of storing potatoes. From the orders passed by Fora below it may be seen that the storage rent to be charged by the petitioner from the respondents was fixed at Rs. 80 per quintal and Rs. 20 per quintal was paid in advance. No body would pay storage charges four times higher the value of the goods to be stored. Respondents should have not paid advance rent at the said rate if the price of potatoes at the time of storage would have been not more than Rs. 20 per quintal. As noticed above, State Commission had fixed the compensation at the said rate taking note of the record of Marketing Board placed on the file and the judgments rendered in other similar matters based on evidence. In this backdrop, submission referred to above is repelled being without any merit. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission fixing the compensation at Rs. 100 per quintal. On rest of the issues adumbrated in preceding para we are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the Fora below in the matter. Revision petitions, thus, deserve to be dismissed being without any merit. It will not be out of place to mention that respondents have not been paid even a single penny towards compensation till today by the petitioner.

RESULTANTLY, aforementioned revision petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 to each of the contesting respondents. Awarded amount will be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within four weeks hereof. Revision Petitions dismissed.