MANAGING DIRECTOR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE MILK UNION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the District Co-operative Mill Union Ltd., Lohardaga, has a cold storage. It is seen that farmers of that area stored their vegetables in the cold storage run by the Co-operative and took them out as and when needed or an opportune time for sale of their produce arrived. Respondents 3 to 5 had left specified quantities of vegetables .for storage with the Co-operative . It seems that the cold storage developed some problems and that there was a threat of the vegetables being spoiled. Notices were given to the farmers calling upon them to remove their vegetables. The farmers came and removed part of the vegetables. They were not allowed to remove all the vegetables stored, according to them. Some vegetables got spoiled. Thereupon, the farmers approached, the District Consumer Forum Lohardaga, under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They claimed that vegetables had been lost to them because of the deficiency in services rendered by the Co-operative and they were entitled to the value of the lost vegetables as well as compensation for the loss of their earnings and mental agony. Thus, a sum of Rs. 95.860/- towards the cost of the vegetables and a sum of Rs. 50.000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and mental agony suffered was claimed.'

(2.) The Co-operative resisted the application by contending that notices had been issued to the farmers to come and collect the vegetables in view of the problems arising out of the failure of the electric power, but the farmers had not turned up to take delivery of the vegetables. That there was no deficiency in the service as claimed and that the farmers are not entitled to claim either the value of the vegetables lost or any compensation. The jurisdiction of the District Forum was also questioned by contending that the farmers had to approach the civil Court with a claim on tort and the claim before the forum was liable to be dismissed. Even though the farmers had clearly indicated in their application before the District Forum the quantum of vegetables lost and their market value by way of a schedule, neither the quantum of the vegetables, lost, nor the value specifically claimed was challenged or questioned by the Co-operative in its objection.

(3.) The District Forum held that the farmers, as consumers, were entitled to the value of the vegetables as indicated in their application. It also held that the farmers were also entitled to compensation for loss of earning at Rs. 50,000/- as claimed by them. The argument that the Consumer Redressal Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim was rejected as not tenable. Thus, an order was passed directing the Co-operative to pay the amounts referred to above to the farmers. The Co-operative went up in appeal under Section 19 of the Act. Though various arguments were raised in the memorandum of appeal, it is seen from the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that it was only agreed that the quantities of vegetables taken back by the farmers was not taken into consideration by the District Forum while quantifying the value of vegetables lost and, specifically that the District Forum was in error in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to value of vegetables lost. In fact, the State Commission states that after some arguments on merits, counsel for the appellant, the Cooperative, fairly confined his arguments to the quantum of compensation only . Accepting the contention in that regard raised by the learned counsel for the Co-operative, the State Commission reduced the quantum of compensation to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 50,000/- and affirmed the value of the vegetables payable by the Co-operative to the farmers at Rs. 95,860/-. The Co-operative was given a chance to pay the amount, and on its failure to do so, it was ordered that interest would be payable to the farmers.