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



M/s. Murugan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. DDF ( Davood Fruit Merchant), Rep. by S.Davood, S/o.Mastan

    F.A.No.293/2009 against C.C.No.91/2008, DISTRICT FORUM-1, CHITTOOR

    Decided On, 04 July 2011

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, HONOURABLE JUSTICE SRI D. APPA RAO
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, SMT M. SHREESHA
    By, HONOURABLE MEMBER & SRI R. LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO
    By, HONOURABLE MEMBER

    For the Appellant : M/s. V. Gowrisankara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent : M/s. P. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.91/2008 on the file of District Forum-1 Chittoor , the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased apples from M/s. Bhagavandoss & Sons, Delhi and the apples worth Rs.26,08,907/- , 50,785 kgs. And the same were stored in the cold storage of the opposite party and the relevant receipts were issued by the opposite party. The receipts are dt.10.12.2007 to 2.1.2008. On 12.3.2008 onwards when the complainant was lifting the stock he was informed that 20 lakhs worth stock was damaged and the complainant took photographs and CD for proving the same. The complainant submits that it was only because of mis management of the opposite party that his stock was damaged and he got issued legal notice on 26.6.2008 calling upon the opposite party to compensate for the loss for which the opposite party replied on 12.6.2008 denying his liability. Hence the complaint seeking the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.19,99,690/- together with interest.

Opposite party filed written version stating that he requested the complainant to have the cold storage verified by a competent and qualified technician. The Cold Storage has branded machinery and Generator with 160 KV capacity. Opposite party denies that the complainant lifted the stocks from 12.3.2008 onwards. The complainant through its agents/employees lifted 30,471 kgs. of apples on 15.3.2008 vide bill no.4705 and another quantity of 25,938 kgs. on the same day vide bill no.4706 and remaining 540 kgs. on 16.3.2008 vide bill no.4707. The apples were delivered in good condition and the boxes were in a sealed condition and he submits that he is not aware of photographs taken. There is no data available that the damaged apples weighed 38,500 kgs. and submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Ex.A1 to A17 and B1 to B3 allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at 9% p.a. from January 2008 till realization and costs of Rs.1500/- .

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal .

Storage of apples from 10.12.2007 to 2.1.2008 is evidenced under Exs.A7 to A12. Ex.A1 to A6 evidence the purchase of the apples by the complainant from 3.12.2007 to 28.12.2007. It is the complainant’s case that when his employees started lifting the stock from the Cold Storage from 12.3.2008 onwards he was informed that 38,500 kgs. of stock worth Rs.20 lakhs was damaged. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Goods Outward nos.4705, 4706 and 4707 which evidence that on 15.3.2008 and 16.3.2008 30,471 kgs., 25,938 kgs. and 540 kgs. were lifted by the complainant. We observe from the record that the complainant has filed only the photographs and CD in proof of his case and did not file any expert opinion in support of his case. There are also no substantial reasons as to why the complainant did not take immediate steps for 3 months. It is the complainant’s case that he noticed damage on 12.3.2008 itself and then he ought to have opened the boxes in the presence of opposite party and taken their endorsement with respect to the quantum of apples damaged. The complainant filed only photographs to establish his case and in the absence of any further documentary evidence it cannot be concluded that firstly the apples were damaged due to the negligence of the opposite party and secondly it is not possible to quantify the number of apples damaged, if any, without any substantial documentary evidence. Keeping in view the a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

fore mentioned reasons we are of the considered view that the complainant did not establish the deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party. Therefore we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and consequently the complaint is dismissed. In the result this appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
O R