PHOOL CHANDRA Vs. FARAZ COLD STORAGE (PVT.) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mohan Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None is present on the other side, although notices were dispatched.

(2.) THE judgment dated 10.9.2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Farrukhabad, whereby the appellant's complaint for recovery of damages and price of the consignment of the potatoes was dismissed, has been criticised on the ground that the District Consumer Forum below has failed to appreciate the appellant's case of there being a deficiency on the part of the Faraz Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd., Jahanganj Road, Chhibramau, District Farrukhabad.

(3.) THE Forum below recorded a finding that the complainant failed to establish that he had demanded delivery of his consignment of potatoes. Also it was observed that it was a deliberate move to abstain from taking delivery of the consignment and subsequently claim damages on the fake ground of refusal by the Cold Storage and the reason for this manufactured ground was that the price of the potatoes in the concerned season of the year 1997 had stooped so low that it would have been uneconomical to collect the delivery of the consignment and suffer losses by selling it at miserably low price in the market and that, too, at the cost of rental of the Cold Storage being paid. In this context, it may be observed that the Cold Storage issued a general notification for information of all the consignors, who had preserved their potatoes in the Cold Storage inviting all concerned to come and collect their consignments latest by November, 1997, but despite this public notice for information of all concerned the appellant/complainant did not turn up to ask for delivery of his consignment. Perhaps, he thought that it would not be a wise step to collect the delivery of the potato bags as it would not be economically viable and earn profits on account of the price having gone down. The reason for fall in the price of the potatoes was the mass production of the potatoes. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to establish the complainant's version that he had gone to the Cold Storage to collect the delivery of his consignment. In this context, it would also be relevant to mention that in the original complaint the complainant had not mentioned any date on which he had requested for delivery of his consignment. However, by virtue of moving an amendment application three years after filing the complaint, he brought on record that he had gone to the Cold Storage for delivery of potato bags on 3rd October, 1997 but the Manager of the Cold Storage refused to comply with. The fact that this date was not clearly stipulated in the original complaint speaks volumes against the genuineness of the averment and perhaps the lapse is indicative of the proof that no demand was ever pressed into service. Even if for arguments sake, we believe that the complainant had asked the Manager of the Cold Storage to part with the delivery and the request was declined, the complainant should have served the Manager or Proprietor of the Cold Storage with a notice which should have been dispatched soon after the refusal came from the Cold Storage side but no such step was taken nor any complaint lodged with any authority of the District including the Horticulture Department. Even no FIR was lodged with the Police. All these lapses on the part of the complainant shows that he himself is to be blamed for not taking the delivery and as mentioned above this deliberate action on his part was full of reasoning that if gone for taking delivery it would have been uneconomical for him in the background of prices of the potatoes having fallen too low. The payment of rental would have been an extra loss as might have been contemplated. In other words it would have been economically unwise for him to collect the delivery of the potatoes.