Vidya Devi Warehouse vs Mahendra Singh Yadav

THE complaint filed by the present respondent was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the matter can be adjudicated by a competent Court by leading elaborate evidence and it is not possible for the Forum to adjudicate deficiency in service in view of the complicated facts of the case. The District Forum further held that it is open to the complainant to initiate proceedings against the OP either in civil or criminal Court. This order was passed after recording affidavit evidence on behalf of both sides. This order was challenged before the State Commission.

THE State Commission, on the basis of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the OP had not delivered 136 bags and in order to create evidence of delivery the OP had fabricated certain documents. The State Commission accordingly allowed the appeal and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,340 with 6% p.a. interest from the date of order. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision.

WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties finally in the matter at the admission stage itself after they were informed of the same.

WE have gone through the record as also Xerox copies of the documents filed which have been placed before us. Admittedly, the complainant had kept 145 bags of gram in the warehouse of the OP/petitioner. The value of the same was Rs. 3,18,340. The complainant had taken 9 bags out of 146 bags on 16.11.2008. However, when the complainant went to take delivery of the remaining 136 bags, delivery was not given on the ground that the complainant had already taken delivery of the same.

THE case of the petitioner/OP is that when the complainant came to take delivery on 25.6.2009, the petitioner asked for original receipt, but the complainant gave undertaking in writing to the fact that he had forgotten the original receipt and would produce the same later on. Therefore, the OP handed over the entire goods stored in the warehouse and the complainant had put his signatures after receiving the goods. It is also stated that a ''Panchnama'' was prepared. It was further stated by the OP that the complainant had sold the goods to one Rajesh Goyal, Proprietor of Rajesh Enterprises for a sum of Rs. 2,39,000 and the amount received by the complainant was deposited in the account of his brother, Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Khalak Singh in State Bank of Indore, Branch at Badarbas on the same day. The OP also filed affidavits of Rajesh Goyal, Dasrath Singh Prihar, Rajaram, Pradeep Vaishya. At this stage, we would like to quote to the famous dictum "witness may lie, but not the circumstances". The State Commission has very rightly pointed out that proper records were prepared at the time of delivery of 9 bags, but there was no proper documentation in respect of delivery of 136 bags. The admitted signatures of the complainant are found on the affidavit of the complainant, which is at pgs. 8, 9 and 10 of Volume 1. The case of the OP is that 136 bags were delivered to the complainant and his signatures were obtained on the receipt. The said receipt is at page 27 of Volume 1. A bare comparison of the admitted signatures as also signatures on the delivery receipt dated 25.6.2009 which is at page 25 of Volume I and document at Page 27 would go to show that signatures of the complainant do not in any manner tally. According to the complainant, Panchnama was prepared for the delivery of 136 bags. However, the signatures of the complainant were not taken. If a Panchnama was prepared for the delivery of 135 bags to the complainant, it is not understood as to why his signatures were not taken on the ''Panchnama''. The OP has relied upon the statement of account of Vijay Khalak Singh Yadav in order to show that a sum of Rs. 2,39,000 was deposited therein. In this respect, affidavit of Rajesh Goyal was filed who has stated that he had purchased 135 bags of grams from the complainant and in front of the broker Aadish he had paid the sum of Rs. 2,39,040 to Mahender Yadav. However, no affidavit of Aadish Dalal was filed nor any documents relating to purchase or payment have been filed. The petitioner also did not file any documents of broker Aadish regarding the transaction. The petitioner filed 3 affidavits of 3 other persons who were working with him i.e. Pradeep Vaishya who is Munim of OP, Raja Ram and Dasrath Singh Prihar are loaders of the OP.

ON the basis of evidence on record, the State Commission rightly held that the delivery to the complainant has not been proved and the OP has created and fabricated documents in order to deny the claim of the complainant. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the State Commission and do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the said findings which are based on material on record. In our opinion, the OP has put up a totally false defence in order to deny the claim of the complainant. We, therefore, dismiss this revision and impose cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for putting up a false and frivolous defence so as to deny the claim of the complainant. The said cost shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The revision is dismissed in aforesaid terms.

THE amount of Rs. 1,50,170 deposited by the petitioner in District Forum shall be released to complainant and for the balance due complainant may file execution proceedings before the District Forum. Revision Petition dismissed.