NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1457 OF 2012
[Against the order dated 13.02.2012 in First Appeal No. 912 of 2010 of the
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh]
Punjab Agri Food Parks Ltd.
SCO No. 12, 2nd Floor, Sector-26
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh
Through its Managing Director
Shri Ankush Aggarwal
Punjab Agri Ventures Ltd.
C/o Punjab Agri Food Parks Complex
Sirhind, Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan
District Fatehgarh Sahib
Through its Manager … Petitioners
Versus
Gurdeep Singh
S/o Marra Singh
R/o Village Bholia, Tehsil Amloh
District Fatehgarh Sahib … Respondent
BEFORE :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Gupta, Advocate
Pronounced on : 3rd July, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. The petitioners are in the business of running cold storage situated on the G.T. Road, Sirhind, Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan. Their clients are mostly farmers, who store their agricultural produce, such as potato and other vegetables/fruits. The petitioners charge rent for the storage of the farmers produce and assure them of their efficient service to maintain the requisite temperature relevant to the safe keeping of the produce during the period of their storage. The respondent/complainant, who is a farmer, had entrusted 309 bags of potato allegedly of seed variety weighing 50 kg. per bag at a rental consideration of Rs.60/- per bag on the 26th of March, 2009 for a period upto the 31st of August, 2009, when the bags were to be taken back. During the last week of August, 2009, when the complainant went to the cold storage for checking the condition of the potatoes, the petitioners initially prevented the respondent/complainant from inspecting his stock on one pretext or the other. However, when he finally managed to see his stock of potatoes, to his dismay it was found that the stock had been totally damaged and spoiled. It had already started germination perhaps due to the improper cooling in the cold storage. He, therefore, requested the petitioners to compensate him for the loss/damage suffered by him but of no avail. Not only that, subsequently the petitioners disposed of his stock without his consent.
2. Aggrieved due to the gross negligence and the deficiency in service on part of the petitioners, the respondent farmer filed a complaint before the Fatehgarh Sahib District Forum, which was contested by the petitioner but on appreciation of the respective pleas and evidence led by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,400/- towards the price of the seed potato of 309 bags at the rate of Rs.12/- per kg. as compensation as also a sum of Rs.17,365/- which remained with them as the balance out of the sale proceeds of his potatoes after adjusting their rental etc.
3. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, who vide the impugned order held that the stock of potato was not seed potato as claimed by the complainant but all the same even for the normal kitchen potato the average sale price during September, 2009 as verified from the Market Committee came to the conclusion that it would have fetched Rs.7/- per kg. and therefore, while partly accepting the appeal of the petitioners directed the compensation to be awarded at the rate of Rs.7/- per kg. and after adjusting the rental and other allied expenditure incurred by the petitioners directed them to pay a sum of Rs.89,610/-.
4. Aggrieved once again that the petitioners have filed this revision petition before us.
5. We have heard Shri Dinesh Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on admission. He has contended that the respondent/complainant has wrongly claimed that he had entrusted the storage of seed potatoes whereas what was stored with them was only goli potatoes. According to him, the rate of golipotatoes was not more than Rs.2/- per kg. but the State Commission has erroneously taken Rs.7/- per kg. based on the average of highest rate of Rs.1100/- per quintal and the lowest being Rs.300/- per quintal. According to him, this approach is not scientific as the price of a particular vegetable like potato cannot so drastically fluctuate within a period of one month, besides the highest and the lowest price may be of totally different varieties/reasons.
6. In the second limb of his argument, the learned counsel has referred to the clauses of the agreement and has contended that the storage was at the risk of the clients and the petitioners had not undertaken to indemnify the clients for any loss. The produce was brought by the respondent/complainant in bulk and it was not physically possible for them to check the quality and variety of the produce and only the weight of the produce was checked. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be held liable for any defective/cut potatoes having been stored inside the bags.
7. We, after having carefully gone through orders passed by the fora below and the records of the case, however, find no weight in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The factum of the stock of potatoes entrusted by the complainant for storage having been damaged is not denied. On the contrary, the petitioners admit that they have taken the admitted stock of potato to various mandis for disposal. We also notice that it is not the only one potato grower whose stock has been damaged. There were as many as 26 potato growers who have faced the same consequence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant had entrusted defective/cut potatoes for storage, which germinated despite proper maintenance of the temperature etc. In any case, we find that the State Commission has very correctly held that the stock of potatoes entrusted to the petitioners was not seed potatoes and has compensated the respondent/complainant only for kitchen potatoes after verifying the rate prevalent during September, 2009 from the local Market Committee. The contention that the Market Committee’s report is not correct cannot be accepted as the Agriculture Produce Market Committees are statutory bodies entrusted with the task of maintaining the rates on a day-to-day basis and their record cannot be questioned in evidence.
8. In our view, the order passed by the State Commission is not only in great detail which discusses all the parameters but is just and appropriate. There being no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, we find absolutely no reason to interfere in this well-reasoned order of the State Commission in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. )
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK)
(MEMBER)
Mukesh
