GARG STORES Vs. DURGA ICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint, has been filed by M/s. Garg Stores, a partnership concern, through its partner, Shri Hari Ram Gupta, averring therein that the complainant firm has been working as a wholesale dealer inter alia dealing in tamarind with seed (Imli), tamarind without seed (Mukassar) and dry grapes (Kishmish), at 11-B, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi, for the last several years. It is stated that the opposite party has been running a cold storage, situated at C-34/3, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, New Delhi, for the last several years, wherein facility of storage of goods is given to the desirous persons for consideration, i. e. , the opposite party rendering services to desirous persons for 'consideration'.

(2.) It is stated that the complainant firm had stored 'imli', 'mukassar' and 'kishmish' in the opposite party's cold storage on different dates in various lot numbers allotted by the opposite party to the complainant, as detailed in paragraph (iv) of the complaint on payment of usual storage charges. It is stated that the opposite party was required to keep the cold storage fit and to take all safety and precautionary measures required for any possible mishap. But the opposite party was negligent and deficient in service, as a result of which in the cold storage, on the night falling between 30th and 31st December, 2000 there was an outbreak of fire, due to which 'imli' of the value of Rs.1,98,443/-, 'mukassar' of the value of Rs.1,60,180/-, and 'kishmish' of the value of Rs.1,67,497/-, belonging to the complainant and stored in the cold storage of the opposite party, were completely destroyed. The details of the goods, belonging to the complainant, and alleged to have been destroyed in the abovesaid fire, have been given in paragraph (iv) of the complaint. It is stated that due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.5,26,120/-. It is stated that the complainant made several representations to the opposite party, asking for compensation, but no relief was given to the complainant. A legal notice dated 29th March, 2001 was also got served on the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,26,120/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. But the opposite party has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. In the complaint filed by the complainant, it has been prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,26,120/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 31st December, 2000 till payment. The complainant has also claimed compensation/damages and cost of litigation.

(3.) A notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party has filed a reply/written version, resisting the claim of the complainant. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party has taken certain preliminary objections, stating that the complainant is not a 'consumer' that the complainant has failed to make out a case of 'deficiency in service', that in view of clauses (1) and (2) of the terms and conditions mentioned at the back of the receipt, the complaint is liable to be dismissed; and that the matter is sub-judiceas the Crime Branch is still investigating the same.