The appellant has preferred this first regular appeal while challenging the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer District Consumer Court Sahiwal in the claim filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of The Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005.
2.The necessary facts giving rise to this R.F.A succinctly are that the petitioner filed claim under Section 25 of The Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 against the respondent and asserted that he stored 669 bags of potato in the cold storage of respondent in healthy condition on 31.3.2008, 1.4.2008 and 2.4.2008; that he lifted 138 bags of potato on 19.7.2008 and 74 bags on 13.9.2008; that when he went to the cold storage of respondent in October, 2008 for lifting the potato, the potato were spoiled due to negligence and defective supervision of the respondent; that he moved application before D.P.O. and lateron matter was referred to the Panchait' who made, bound the parties not to start litigaion; that Panchait' inspected the cold storage of respondent, where 187 bags of potato were found spoiled, which were not lifted. In the application moved before Judge Consumer Court the petitioner claimed Rs. 8,00,000/- As price of potato and compensation and Rs. 7,00,000/- as damages, whereas total claim made by the petitioner was Rs.
15,00,000/-. The respondent contested the claim of petitioner by submitting written reply in which he took six preliminary objections about the maintainability of claim. On merits he controverted the claim of petitioner and contended that false case under Section 406/506 PPC was lodged by the petitioner against him. He further contended that the petitioner paid the rent of 231 bags, whereas, the remaining rent of potato seed was not paid to him. The learned Presiding Officer/Consumer Court recorded evidence of the parties and through impugned order dated 4.11.2009 allowed the claim of petitioner to the extent of recovery of 186 bags of healthy potato while observing that the petitioner is entitled for the delivery of 186 bags healthy potato of stored quality. The instant RFA has been filed by the petitioner for the recovery of damages, compensation and for imposing the penalty under Section 31 & 32 of The Punjab Consumer Protection Act against the respondent.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that while accepting the claim of petitioner through order dated 4.11.2009 the learned Consumer Court should have imposed the penalties under Sections 31 & 32 of the Act referred, supra against the respondent; that the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- as damages along with compensation of spoiled potato but no order has been passed by the 'learned Consumer Court in this respect, whereas the petitioner is entitled to recover the same.
4.On the other side, dy the petitioner in the store of the respondent were not spoiled; that in fact the petitioner had not paid the rental charges for storage to the respondent and when respondent asked the petitioner to pay the same before lifting the potato bags, the petitioner lodged false criminal case against the respondent and petitioner himself did not lift 186 bags potato lateron without any fault on behalf of the respondent.
5.I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6.In the main application and in the statement made by the petitioner as PW-1, the stance of the petitioner is that 186 bags of potato stored in the store of respondent were spoiled due to the negligence and defective services provided by the respondent. In his statement he has stated that `Panchait' had visited the store of I respondent, where the said potato bags were found spoiled, but no witness from the alleged Panchait' has been produced by the petitioner to prove that 186 bags of potato were found spoiled in the store of respondent. There is no expert evidence regarding the alleged spoiled potato bags lying in the store of respondent. On the other side it is stance of respondent in the written reply and in his statement as DW-1 that as the petitioner had not paid the rent for storage, he asked the petitioner to pay the same for which the petitioner was not ready and due to that reason he stopped the lifting of stored potato. The learned Consumer Court has rightly passed the order dated 4.11.2009 for the delivery of 186 bags of healthy potato of stored quality to the petitioner, keeping in view the admission of the respondent that said 186 bags of potato stored by the respondent were not lifted by the petitioner.
7. So far as the alleged claim of petitioner regarding compensation and damages is concerned, neither in the claim application the petitioner has mentioned any break up of alleged damages nor he has provided any detail that how the petitioner sustained any loss for claiming alleged damages of Rs. 7,00,000/-. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by petitioner to prove his alleged claim regarding damages and compensation. Therefore, the learned trial Court while not granting the damages or any compensation to the petitioner has not committed any illegality or miscarriage of justice. As the petitioner has not produced any expert or other evidence to prove that 186 bags of potato were spoiled due to the defective services of the respondent, there was no justification for imposing any penalty upon the respondent under Sections 31 & 32 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act by the learned Consumer Court.
8. The upshot of above discussion and observations is that I find no merits in this R.F.A. and the same is dismissed accordingly.