U.P. Co -Operative Federation Ltd. vs Rajpati Yadav

SH . Rajpati Yadav, the complainant in this case, deposited 30 sacks of potatoes weighing 85 kgs each, in the Cold Storage of U.P. Co -operative Federation Limited, Tadiano Kopaganj, Tehsil, Sadar, District Mau, Uttar Pradesh, O.P. on 30.3.1996. The complainant went to the Cold Storage on 22.10.1996 with his tractor for taking the potatoes. However, he was asked to come again, on 11.11.1996. However, the potatoes were not given back on 11.11.1996. The O.P. also did not fix any further date. The complainant made a written request to the O.P. on 15.11.1996 upon which he was called again on 21.11.1996, on which date, the O.P. told him that only 17 sacks of potatoes could be cleared from the storage. The complainant also deposited the rent charges of Rs. 643. The 17 sacks of potatoes contained only one -fourth of the original potatoes in each sack and the same were in rotten condition. The complainant returned those potatoes to the OP. He assessed the loss in the sum of Rs. 99,600 and filed a complaint before the District Forum. On the other hand, the O.P. contended that the complainant was not the person, who had actually deposited the potato sacks. The O.P. contended that the depositor came to the Cold Storage on 21.11.1996, took 17 sacks of potatoes, paid rent of Rs. 643.50 and stated that he would come again for taking the remaining sacks subsequently. The last date for the closing of the Cold Storage was 30.11.1996. The depositor did not take the rest of the potatoes till that date.

THE District Forum came to the following conclusion: "The next question that has to be considered is as how much compensation is to be paid to the complainant. The complainant has shown a value of 30 bags of potato weighing 25.800 qtls. at the rate of Rs. 700 per qtl., amounting to Rs. 17,850 which is not disputed. The complainant has shown Rs. 1,500 as the cartage paid for coming five times with trolley which in our view is justified. The complainant has shown Rs. 20,000 as mental harassment and the loss caused to him due to non -sowing to Rs. 60,000 against which no firm evidence except the affidavit has been filed by the complainant. In entire circumstances, in our view, it would be justified that the complainant be paid Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the loss caused to him. The complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation within one month and on failure to do this, the Respondent would pay interest at the rate of 10% on this amount which would be applicable on this date."

The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the OP.

WE have heard Counsel for the petitioner and respondent/complainant, who appeared of his own. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the compensation granted by the Courts below is on the higher side and it should be reduced in view of the judgment of this Commission reported in Maa Chamunda Cold Storage v. Harinarayan,, IV (2012) CPJ 703 (NC), authored by one of us (Justice J.M. Malik). He also contended that the closing date of the Cold Storage was 30.11.1996 and the complainant did not pick up the potatoes prior to that. He contended that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not liable to pay the damages.

ALL these arguments lack conviction. The O.P. did not lead even an iota of evidence that some other person than the complainant had stored the potatoes in the said Cold Storage. On the contrary, the complainant produced written evidence of the Manager of the O.P. dated 21.11.1996 which stated that "the rent of 17 sacks of Lot No. 1348/30 was deposited". The non -mention of the remaining 13 sacks is conspicuous. It is not understood where did the 13 sacks vanish. No explanation is forthcoming. The petitioner has not come to this Commission with clean hands. The case is supported by the affidavit of the complainant and also by the request made by him to the O.P. vide letter on 15.11.1996, marked as Ex. 7Ga2/4, before the District Forum. The District Forum, observed as under: "The complainant has filed his affidavit as 5Ga2 in support of this argument. The complainant has also filed 7Ga2/4 as evidence of the request dated 15.11.1996 in which there is the mention of the above sated facts. Against this, the Respondent has filed affidavit on behalf of the Manager, Sama Narain Yadav, as 18Ga2/4 in which the statements made as above by the complainant have not been denied. Because of this evidence, in our view, the contention of the complainant that he went on various dates before 21.11.1996, but was not given the potato by the Respondent nor was he given any satisfactory reply due to which he had to go to the Respondent by Tractor Trolley 2 -4 times and had returned back, sad."

IN view of this discussion, we find that the concurrent findings given by the Fora below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They rightly fastened the liability upon the OP. The revision petition is dismissed.

THE District Forum, Mau, shall return the decretal amount deposited by the Petitioner/OP, with it in Complaint No. 81/1996, to the Complainant/Respondent, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, forthwith. The Registry is directed to send back the Original Record to the District Forum, Mau, along with copy of this order.