Hakim Singh vs Raghuveer Singh

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member

Heard Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Aforementioned revision has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh dated 02.08.2018, passed in First Appeal No.794 of 2017 (arising out of order of District Consumer Forum, Agra, dated 06.04.2017, passed in CC/243/2007) whereby the complaint was allowed with cost of Rs.5000/- and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.219900/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

Raghuveer Singh (the respondent) filed CC/243/2017, for directing Maa Sidhidatri Sheet Grih (the petitioner) (i) to pay Rs.508600/-, for misappropriation of his potatoes stored in cold storage of the petitioner.

The complainant stated that he had stored 733 sacks potatoes (each sack contained 50 kg. potatoes), in the cold storage of the petitioner on 30.03.2007, 02.04.2007, 04.04.2007, 05.04.2007, for which, the petitioner had issued receipts Nos.1312, 1330, 1333, 1380, 1455 and 11384. When the complainant went to take back his potatoes on 18.10.2007, then the proprietor (the petitioner) told that the potatoes were getting stale and in spite of information, he had not come to receive the potatoes as such he had sold it. The petitioner asked the complainant to come after two-four days to take him money. After some interval, when the complainant again went to the house of the petitioner then he refused to give anything. The petitioner claimed Rs.259800/- + Rs.210000/- as price of potatoes, Rs.4800/- + Rs.3000/- as transportation charges, Rs.1000/- as traveling expenses, Rs.5000/- as legal expenses, and Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The complaint was filed, complaining deficiency in service.

The petitioner filed his written reply and contested the complaint. The material facts as stated in the complaint have not been disputed. It has been stated that the complainant stored 733 packets of potatoes through Mr. Ramanlal Varma, in very bad condition, which was accepted under pressure with condition that the opposite party would not be responsible for any further damage. The complainant took Rs.one lakh from the opposite party through Mr. Ramanlal Varma on 01.04.2007 and 03.04.2007. Thereafter, the complainant never came to take back potatoes. As per Rules & Regulation, if the potatoes are not taken back from cold storage till 31.10.2007, then the owner of cold storage was bound to clear it from cold storage. The opposite party therefore sold the potatoes, which had become short of 131 packets due to sorting. 252 packets were sold to Rajesh Kumar, of Gwalior on 25.11.2007 for Rs.22127/- and 350 packets were sold to F.K. Traders, Sikerndera for Rs.47688/- The complainant had already taken Rs.one lakh in advance and dumped the potatoes in bad condition in the cold storage. The complainant had to pay Rs.146385/- to the opposite party towards various expenses, incurred by the opposite party.

The complainant filed Rejoinder Reply and Affidavit of Evidence of Raghuveer Singh and documentary evidence. The petitioner filed Affidavit of Evidence of Hakim Singh and documentary evidence. District Forum, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 06.04.2017, held that the opposite party had admitted storage of 733 packets of potatoes (each of 50 kg.) in March-April, 2007 by the complainant, which was otherwise also proved from the receipts by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to prove that he had given Rs.one lakh to the complainant on 01.04.2007 and 03.04.2007. The opposite party has not given any notice to the complainant before selling his potatoes. On these findings, the complaint was allowed and order as stated above has been passed. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.794 of 2017) from the aforesaid order. State Commission, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 02.08.2018, affirmed the findings of District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision has been filed.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The petitioner took plea that the respondent had taken Rs.one lakh from him through Mr. Ramanlal Varma on 01.04.2007 and 03.04.2007. Thereafter, the respondent never came to take back potatoes. District Forum found that counter foil of the receipts dated 01.04.2007 and 03.04.2007 were not signed by Raghuveer Singh rather it were signed by Ramanlal Varma. The petitioner did not produce Ramanlal Varma in evidence to prove that he had received this money for the respondent. At the time of storing the potatoes in cold storage there was no occasion for the respondent to take any money from the petitioner. Concurrent findings that the petitioner has failed to prove any payment to the respondent as alleged does not suffer from any illegality.

The petitioner further took plea that as per Rules & Regulation, if the potatoes are not taken back from cold storage till 31.10.2007, then the owner of cold storage was bound to clear it from cold storage. But according to his own case, he had sold the potatoes before 31.10.2007. If the potatoes were deteriorating then, the petitioner would have given any notice to the respondent for withdrawing the potatoes from his cold storage prior to 31.10.2007. Admittedly the potatoes were sold by the petitioner, as such, foras below has directed him to pay the price of the potatoes to the respondent. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286 held that National Commission, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, cannot set aside concurrent findings of fact of foras below.

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is dismissed.