Padma Himghar Pvt. Ltd vs Ghanshyam Saha

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 13.09.2010 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ?the State Commission?) in FA no. 239 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite party (OP) and confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Form, Malda (In short, ?the District Forum?) in consumer complaint no. 16 of 2009 by directing the appellant to comply with the award of the District Forum within 45 days from the date of the State Commission?s order, failing which to also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount till its realisation in full. It may be mentioned that the District Forum had allowed the complaint in part and directed the OP to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of its own order, failing which to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Fora below, the OP has filed this revision petition.

WE have heard Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner/OP and carefully considered the documents filed by him in compliance of our directions. The main point raised by Mr. Ghosh is that though the respondent/complainant claimed relief in respect of payment of the price of potato bags stored by him in his own name as well as those of his wife and son in the cold storage run by the petitioner, the complaint did not implead his wife and son in the complaint. According to Mr. Ghosh, the order of the District Forum, though confirmed by the State Commission, cannot be sustained in respect of the persons not even impleaded in the original complaint.

While there is some technical substance in the contention of Mr. Ghosh, we notice that deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is obvious for it did not even issue a notice to the respondent/complainant to take away the bags of potatoes on expiry of the contracted period of storage. Moreover, the wife and son of the complainant confirmed before the District Forum that the latter was the holder of their power of attorney in respect of the complaint. The fact of storage of the quantity of potatoes as claimed in the complaint was also not disputed nor was the rate per kilogram thereof.

IN other words, the revision petition cannot succeed. However, in the interest of justice, the order of the State Commission is slightly modified as under: (i) The petitioner shall pay the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the respondent/complainant within four weeks from the date of this order, along with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.06.2010 till payment. (ii) Simultaneously, the respondent/complainant shall indemnify the petitioner in writing against any claim by his wife and son in respect of the potatoes stored in their names in the cold storage owned and run by the petitioner.

The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.