w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


M/s. Chatak Cold Storage & Others v/s Jaipal Singh

    Revision Petition No. 2001 of 2015
    Decided On, 20 August 2015
    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. M. SHREESHA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER
    For the Petitioners: Pramod Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------


Judgment Text
1. Heard Counsel for the Revision Petitioners.

2. The facts, which are material to the case, are that the Respondent/Complainant had stored 15 bags of red potatoes and 99 bags of white potatoes in the cold storage of the Opposite Parties, who are the Revision Petitioners herein, in year 1996. Each bag was weighing between 98 kgs. to 100 kgs. It is the case of the Complainant that on 25.09.1996 when he went to take the potatoes, he was informed by the staff of the Revision Petitioners that the potatoes were spoilt and had become rotten. It is the case of the Revision Petitioners that on 18.06.1996 the Complainant had been informed by means of a notice that he ought to withdraw his potatoes and that on 27.06.1996 he had taken the potatoes from the cold storage. The Complainant denies received such notice to take back the potatoes. The address of the Complainant, mentioned in the notice, was Jaipal Singh S/o Murli Singh, Gadhiya Kachpura, Farrukhabad and there was no mention of Police Station, Tehsil and Post Office, Street and Mohalla etc. on the said notice. In any case, the Opposite Parties did not file any documentary evidence to show that this notice had been received by the Complainant.

3. The District Forum after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 30.11.2009, while observing that a false affidavit was filed by Shri Hari Kishan Arya and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Arya and the notice sent by the Opposite Parties, the Revision Petitioners herein, was not received by the Complainant, allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of ₹23,500/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realization.

4. Aggrieved by this order, the Opposite Parties preferred First Appeal No. 198 of 2010 before the State Commission in. However, while concurring with the finding returned by the District Forum, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that at the time of disposal of the Appeal, neither they nor the Complainant was present before the State Commission and their arguments were also not heard. In this situation, the State Commission should not have dismissed the Appeal.

6. It is observed from the order by the State Commission that it had disposed of the matter on merits, after taking into consideration all the material on record and the fact that the potatoes were admittedly in the custody of the Revision Petitioners herein and were spoilt, as the Complainant was not given any notice to take back his potatoes within a specified time frame.

7. Having regard to the facts that the quantum involved is ₹23,500/- with i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nterest @ 6% per annum; there is a concurrent finding of both the Fora below; and that the Complaint was filed before the District Forum almost 20 years ago, in the year 1996, we do not find it a case fit to be allowed. Hence, the Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
O R