NEW YAMUNA COLD STORAGE vs Jagdish

M/s. Yamuna Cold Storage appeals against the order of the District Forum Jagadhri allowing the respondent''s complaint & awarding a compensation of Rs. 3400/- along with costs of Rs. 2000/-.

THE case set up by the complainant-respondent was that in the month of March 1992, he had kept 59 bags of potato seed in the appellant Cold Storage vide lot No. 283/59 on the 20th of March, 1992 and again another 8 bags on the 21st of March, 1992 vide lot No. 286/8. It was averred that this potato seed was required for the sowing of a new crop and was purchased at the rate of Rs. 200/- per bag for a sum of Rs. 13,400/-. In October, 1992 at the approach of the planting season, the complainant allegedly prepared his fields for sowing potato and on the 21st of October, he went to the appellant cold storage and got prepared a delivery challan No. 1623 of even date. It was his case that when he went inside, he was surprised to find all the 67 bags having completely rotted and emitting foul smell etc. Consequently, he refused to take delivery and subsequently purchased potato seed at the rate of Rs. 250/- per bag for his requirement and thereafter preferred the complaint seeking the value of the potato seed alongwith damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

The appellants firmly contested the respondent''s stand. In the written statement preluminary objection was taken that the stored goods have been duly taken back by the complainant and the goods receipt issued had been returned to the appellants and consequently the complaint was not maintainable. On merits, it was fairly conceded that one Chatar Singh had stored 59 bags vide receipt No. 283/59 dated the 20th of March, 1992. It was specifically mentioned in the said receipt that the potatoes in the said bags were Golikar and Dagi (poor quality) and there was no responsibility of the respondents and further subject to the printed terms and conditions in the said receipt. It was also pleaded that the aforesaid Chatar Singh had particularly put his signatures in token thereof. Thereafter again 8 bags were stored on the 21st of March, 1992 through one Joginder and these were also accepted vide receipt No. 286/8 subject to the terms and conditions printed overleaf in the same. The other allegations of the complainant were stoutly controverted.

THE firm stand taken was that on the 21st of October, 1992 the complainant brought his trolly and after getting the delivery voucher prepared he loaded the stored potatoes and put them away whilst promising to pay the hire charges later in a day or two. In terms it was stated that the complainant had returned the original goods receipt issued by the appellants. It was the case that later the hire charges were not paid by the complainant as promised and when pressed the present complaint was filed as a counter blast thereto. It was pleaded that the appellants were taking steps to recover the charges due from the complainant separately. All other allegations in the complaint were in terms denied. The record is testimony to the fact that despite the precise rebuttal in the written statement and production of the goods receipt vouchers separately for 59 bags and 8 bags the complainant-respondent did not choose to file any replication nor was the authenticity of the two goods receipt vouchers challenged on his behalf. Curiously no further evidence thereafter, barring the original cryptic affidavit attached to the complaint was led despite a number of opportunities granted and adjournments given for the said purpose. The appellants on the other hand placed firm reliance on the documentary evidence and the affidavit of Rajnish Kuthiala averring that every part of the written statement filed and signed by him was perfectly correct and based on truth. Yet again the respondent did not even claim to cross-examine Shri Rajnish Kuthiala at all thus virtually accepted the detailed stand in the written statement.

DESPITE the absence of any pleading or evidence the respondent''s Counsel apparently at the stage of argument raised the specious submission that the clear cut entry on the goods receipt dated 20th of March, 1992 with regard to the specified defective goods and consequent non-liability of the appellants had been recorded and forged later. The District Forum somewhat summarily, and if one may say hastily, observed somewhat vaccilatingly that the relevant entry on the goods receipt seems to have been written later on. On that shaky premise and conjectural assumption that the respondent would not have stored the defective seed, the relief was granted in the terms noticed at the very out-set. Mr. Puneet Jindal, the learned Counsel for the appellants in an able argument first highlighted that there was not a title of either documentary or oral evidence in support of the respondent''s case. It was pointed out that the relevant goods receipt had been duly surrendered by the respondent and had been produced on the record by the appellants which was clearly indicative of the fact that he had taken deli very of the goods against them. The crucial submission was that the relevant entry in the goods receipt had neither been assailed by way of challenging the authenticity of the document, nor was even a replication or a plea taken that there were any false interpolation therein. The order under appeal was, assailed as conjectural and wholly beyond the evidence and pleadings and consequently unsustainable. There is a patent merit in the aforesaid stand. What first meets the eye herein is the significant fact that the appellants in their written statement had forthrightly pleaded the two relevant goods receipt vouchers No. 283/59 and 286/8 dated the 20th of March, 1992 and 21st of March, 1992 respectively and produced them on the record. The first goods receipt voucher clearly bore the entry with regard to the defective quality of the goods and the non-liability of the appellants on the score. Despite such a clear cut pleading the complainant did not even care to put in a replication assailing the appellant''s stand. The record shows that the authenticity of the two goods receipt vouchers produced on the record was at no stage challenged even though the respondent was fully represented by Counsel throughout. Shri Rajnish Kuthiala who swore in his affidavit about the veracity of the contents of the written statement was not cross-examined on behalf of the respondent. What is more the latter thereafter chose to lead no evidence of his own in support of his case.

IN the aforesaid Context the mere argument of the respondent''s Counsel that the crucial entry in the goods receipt voucher had been added later had not the least factual foundation and was wholly beyond the pleadings. The District Forum was in patent error in not only entertaining such a submission but cryptically opining without any expert testimony that the word Golikar and Dagi & others seemed to have been written later on. It, therefore, erred in resting itself on such a sketchy foundation in the summary jurisdiction. It maybe observed that the question whether a document is authentic or forged has necessarily to be made a specific issue. It bears repetition that the respondent neither challenged the authenticity of the document nor even countered it by way of a replication to allege that it was a subsequent entry and consequently a forgery. We are of the view that in this context the summary consumer jurisdiction was hardly one in which a vacillating finding that the relevant entry seems to have been written later could be arrived at. There was no testimonial basis for so holding and we are constrained to reverse the finding of the District Forum on this very crucial issue.

APART from the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent was forced to concede that herein there was not a title of documentary evidence in support of the complainant''s case. Indeed the fact of the goods receipt having been surrendered and later produced from the custody of the appellants would virtually establish their stand that delivery of the goods had been duly taken against the surrender of the said document. Lastly it deserves mention that the respondent''s case appears to us as virtually one of no evidence at all. The cryptic relevant averment in the affidavit attached to the complaint was in the following terms : - "That the deponent stored 67 bags of potato seed in the Cold Store of the respondents in the month of March 1992 for safe custody and when on 21.10.1992 the complainant came to take delivery of the said potato seeds, he found that all the bags of potato seed were damaged badly, which were under custody and charge of the respondents and they were responsible to keep the said seed properly and to save the same from any damages."

Even after the written statement had been filed rebutting all the averments in the complaint and resting itself squarely on the plea of the delivery of goods against the surrender of the receipt and non-liability on the basis of the defective goods stored, the respondent did not choose to add a title of evidence by way of either his own detailed affidavit or any other testimony of another witness or any document in rebuttal. This was so despite numerous opportunities and adjournments granted for the purpose. The virtual absence or paucity of evidence in case of the respondent is writ large on the face of the record. It is elementary that the burden of establishing his case, however light, rests on the complainant and herein he seems to have miserably failed in discharging that onus.

For the somewhat detailed reasons recorded above, the appeal must succeed and is hereby allowed. We are constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, we still decline to burden the respondent with any costs because of his consumer status. Appeal allowed.