Jharkhand High Court
Managing Director, District ... vs Presiding Officer, State Consumer ... on 23 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2004JHAR101, AIR 2004 JHARKHAND 101, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 870 (2004) 1 JLJR 79, (2004) 1 JLJR 79
Author: P.K. Balasubramanyan
Bench: P.K. Balasubramanyan, Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
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 riot 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.
4. Feeling aggrieved by this decision of the State Commission, this writ petition was filed by the Co-operative. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge, a contention was raised on behalf of the farmers that the Co-operative had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision to the National Commission under Section 21 of the Act and in view of the existence of such an alternative remedy, the writ petition filed by the Co-operative invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India could not be entertained or should not be entertained. The learned single Judge considered that question and by his order dated 15-10-2003 took the view that in the absence of a further right inring (conferring) in the Co-operative to appeal to the National Commission, under the Act, it could not be held that the approach of the Co-operative to this Court under the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as ineligible. The learned Judge held that the fact that the National Commission could exercise revisional jurisdiction did not necessarily precluded a Co-operative from approaching this Court. In fact, the learned single Judge went to the extent of saying that the only remedy available to the Co-operative was to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Though the learned counsel for the farmers, may be justified in submitting that this was an over statement, the finding that the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of a possible approach to the National Commission by way of a re vision, could not be said to be incorrect. In a way, though in a given case, we might have the plenary jurisdiction, when a case is referred to us by a learned single Judge even to interfere with his order holding that the writ petition is maintainable, in the case on hand, we do not think that any ground exists for exercising such a jurisdiction and to differ from the learned single Judge and to hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. We thus accept the finding of the learned single Judge that the writ petition is maintainable and proceed to consider the case on merits, since the learned single Judge in his order rejecting the preliminary objection, also held that by way of a parallel to the Administrative Tribunals Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 : (1997 Lab IC 1069), it would be appropriate that a Division Bench hears such a writ petition arising from an order passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the State Commission.
5. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the Co-operative, the writ petitioner, submitted that the farmers were not consumers within the meaning of the Act and the dispute raised by them was not a dispute amenable to resolution by the District Consumer Forum. According to the counsel, the farmers who approached the forum were really businessmen and the articles they had supplied to the Co-operative for being stored were the articles involved in their business and if so, they cannot be considered as consumers within the meaning of the Act. We are afraid that this argument sought to be raised by the learned counsel lacks factual foundation. No such plea was put forward either in the objection filed before the District Forum or even at the time of arguing the appeal before the State Commission. This is a mixed question of fact and law and unless the factual foundation has been led, it would hot be proper for this Court to entertain such a plea. Moreover, from the pleadings and the evidence, what is seen is that the consumers here were the farmers who raised the vegetables and who had stored it with the Co-operative awaiting a favourable opportunity to sell their farm produce like when the demand arose or when the prices became attractive , All such framers were not traders in vegetable. They had approached the Co-operative for the service of Cold Storage for their vegetables. In rendering that service, the Co-operative had failed, or there was a deficiency in the services rendered by the Co-operative. In this factual background, there cannot be much difficulty in holding that the farmers, who approached the District Forum are consumers as defined in the Act and that the facts pleaded and established clearly gave rise to a dispute within the meaning of the Act. Thus, this argument raised on behalf of the Co-operative has only to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel then attempted to argue that there was no evidence of the quantum of vegetables lost or the value thereof. It is also pointed out that there was no adjudication on the quantum by the District Forum. But, on a scrutiny of the pleadings before the District Forum, it is seen that the farmers had clearly set out the quantum and the varieties of vegetables lost to them and their market price. This specific plea of the farmers was not even denied by the Co-operative either in its objection or even at the time of evidence. In other words, there was no challenge to the case of the farmers that such and such quantity of vegetables had been lost and the value of his lost vegetables was so much. The claim stood uncontroverted. Even in cross-examination of the claimants, there was no suggestion that the rates claimed by them was excessive or the quantum claimed as lost was exaggerated. In this situation, the District Forum, in our view, was fully justified in upholding the claim of the farmers regarding the quantum of vegetables lost and their value. Before the State Commission also, this aspect had not been projected seriously. Even otherwise, in the light of the pleadings and the evidence, there was not much scope of raising such a contention at the appellate stage. We have therefore, to hold that the value of the vegetables awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is clearly justified in this case.
7. Learned counsel then argued that the State Commission should have denied any compensation to the farmers for loss of earnings or mental agony. The award of the District Forum at Rs. 50,000/- was without basis according to the counsel. But we notice that the State Commission modified that award and reduced it to Rs. 10,000/-.
8. We find that there might be some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the Co-operative that the failure of the Cold Storage was due to voltage fluctuation or power failure, but that is an aspect which has not been established by evidence by the Co-operative. The Cooperative had issued notices to the farmers and they had come to collect the vegetables. The evidence of the witness examined from the Cooperative shows that when, on one occasion, the farmers approached the Co-operative to collect the vegetables, apparently in time, in an attempt to salvage the vegetables, and to take delivery of them, he refused to deliver it to them in the absence of any direction from his higher ups. This shows that the Co-operative was guilty of not trying to minimize the loss of the farmers. If, in this situation, the State Commission thought that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should be awarded as compensation to the farmers, it could not be said that in doing so, the State Commission had acted so unreasonably or arbitrarily as to justify our interference. We may also notice that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission had awarded any cost to the farmers or even interest on the amount ordered to be paid, unless of course, the Cooperative defaulted in making the payment within the time prescribed by the State Commission. Thus, on the whole, we find that the award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the farmers by the State Commission cannot be said to be unreasonable or could not also be held to be an award without jurisdiction. Hence, the argument in that behalf is also overruled. 9. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the State Commission. The same is affirmed and this writ petition, is dismissed.