# M/s Chakor Cold Storage,District Firozabad & Ors v. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, District Firozabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 561
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-16
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 27693 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-chakor-cold-storage-district-firozabad-ors-v-district-consumer-dispute-45104
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Regulation
Cold Storage Act,1976 - Section 24 &
Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section
15-challenge to -jurisdiction of District
consumer Forum-U.P. Act 1976 will not
override
the
provisions
of
Central
Act,1986-both the remedies are available
to Farmer-right to claim damages and
compensation has been conferred upon
aggrieved person under both statutes-it is
open to person concerned to elect the
forum where he wants to have his right
adjudicated. (Para 1 to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited: -

## Text

9 All. M/s Chakor Cold Storage, District Firozabad & Ors. Vs. District Consumer Dipsute Redressal
Forum, District-Firozabad & Ors.
561
(2020)09ILR A561
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

WRIT - C No. 27693 of 2019

M/s
Chakor
Cold
Storage,District
Firozabad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
District Firozabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Adarsh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Regulation
Cold Storage Act,1976 - Section 24 &
Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section
15-challenge to -jurisdiction of District
consumer Forum-U.P. Act 1976 will not
override
the
provisions
of
Central
Act,1986-both the remedies are available
to Farmer-right to claim damages and
compensation has been conferred upon
aggrieved person under both statutes-it is
open to person concerned to elect the
forum where he wants to have his right
adjudicated. (Para 1 to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited: -

1. GM Telecom Vs M. Krishnan & anr.,(2009) 8
SCC 481

2. Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh
Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483

3. M/s Behari Colds (P) Ltd. Vs St. Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission & ors., W.P. No.
557 (MS) of 2009
4.
Chairman,
Thiruvalluvar
Transport
Corporation Vs Consumer Protection Council,
AIR (1995) SC 1384

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
& Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
assailing an order dated 6th July 2019
passed by District Consumer Forum,
Firozabad
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"DCF") holding that it has jurisdiction to
entertain claim of a "Farmer" whose crop
(potatoes in the present case) kept for
storage in the petitioners' cold storage had
damaged and he is claiming compensation.

2. Though order passed by DCF is
appellable under Section 15 of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred
to as "Central Act, 1986") before "State
Commission" but learned counsel for
petitioners submits that he has challenged
the very jurisdiction, thus alternative
remedy would not bar this writ petition.

3. Since a pure question of law has
been raised, with the consent of parties, we
proceed to hear and decide this matter
without relegating petitioner to avail
statutory alternative remedy and also
considering the fact that learned Standing
Counsel has not opted and requested for
time to file any counter affidavit but has
requested this Court to decide this matter at
this very stage.

4. Contention of the petitioners is that
they are running a cold storage, namely,
M/s Chakor Cold Storage situate at Saipuri
Road Aroon, Police Station, Sirsa Ganj,
District Firozabad under a licence obtained
under Uttar Pradesh Regulation Cold
Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to
as 'U.P. Act, 1976') and if there is any
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
damage to the crop stored by "Farmer" in
the
said
cold
storage,
remedy
of
compensation has been provided under
Section 24 of U.P. Act, 1976 by raising a
dispute before "Licensing Authority" and,
thereafter, a further remedy is provided
before a "Tribunal" constituted under
Section 35. U.P. Act 1976 is a special Act,
therefore, it is contended that DCF under
Central Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction.
Reliance in this regard is placed on
Supreme Court's Judgement in General
Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and
another, 2009 (8) SCC 481. It is also
argued that service of storage of crop in
cold storage for its protection is not
included in the definition of "service" under
Section 2 (o) and "Farmer" is not a
"Consumer" as defined under Section 2(d)
of Central Act, 1986, therefore, D.C.F. in
the present case has no jurisdiction. In
support of above, reliance is placed on
Supreme Court's Judgment in Bihar School
Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad
Sinha, 2009 (8) SCC 483.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted
that U.P. Act, 1976, which is a Provincial
enactment, has not been given any Presidential
assent, hence cannot override provisions of
Central Act, 1986, which is a Parliamentary
enactment. He submits that cold storage
renders service of storage of crop and charge
fee, therefore, a 'Farmer' whose crop is stored
in cold storage is a "Consumer", to him,
petitioner is rendering a service. If any
deficiency in service is found, "Consumer",
i.e., Farmer has remedy of claiming damages
of compensation under Central Act, 1986 and
mere fact that a Provincial enactment i.e., U.P.
Act, 1976 is also available, will not denude
jurisdiction to DCF under Central Act, 1986.

6. We have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record. U.P. Act
1976 was enacted to provide for licensing
supervision and control of cold storages in
State of U.P. and for matters connected
therewith. Statement of objects and reasons
clearly provides that Provincial Legislature
marked development in cold storage
industries in last the decade prior to 1976
which had shown establishment of large
number of cold storages in private sector
across the State of U.P., particularly in and
around the areas which have abundance
growth of potato crop. To ensure efficient
maintenance of cold storages and to
remove hardship to Agricultural Producers,
proper control and regulation of the cold
storage business was considered necessary
in public interest. U.P. Act, 1976 received
assent of the Governor on April 16, 1976,
published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary)
dated 19th April 1976 and has been given
effect from September 20, 1975.

7. Section 2(c) defines "cold storage";
Section 2(d) defines "Hirer"; Section 2(e)
defines "licence"; and, Section 2(f) defines
"licensee", which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"(c) "cold storage" means an
enclosed
chamber
insulated
and
mechanically
cooled
by
refrigeration
machinery
to
provide
refrigerated
condition to agricultural produce stored
therein, but does not include refrigerated
cabinets and chilling plants having a
capacity of less than 100 cubic metres;

(d) "hirer" means a person who
on payment hires space in a cold storage
for storing agricultural produce;

(e) "licence" means a licence
granted under this Act;

(f) "licensee" means any person to
whom a licence is granted under this Act;"

8. Section 5 of U.P. Act, 1976
imposes a restriction upon any person to
9 All. M/s Chakor Cold Storage, District Firozabad & Ors. Vs. District Consumer Dipsute Redressal
Forum, District-Firozabad & Ors.
563
carry
on
business
of
storing
any
agricultural produce in cold storage except
under and in accordance with the terms and
conditions of licence granted under U.P.
Act, 1976. Section 6 talks of the procedure
for grant of licence and Section 7 provides
for terms and renewal of licence. Chapter
IV which contains Sections 12 to 28 deals
with rights and duties of licensee. Section
12 says that licensee shall take care of such
cold storage as a man of ordinary prudence
would take of his own goods under similar
circumstances and objections. Section 24
talks of compensation for loss, destruction
etc. of the goods stored in cold storage
which reads as under:-

"24.
compensation
for
loss,
destruction, etc.- Except as otherwise
provided in this Act the licensee shall be
liable to pay to the hirer compensation for
every
loss,
destruction,
damage,
deterioration or non-delivery of the goods
stored in his cold storage cause by the
negligence, misconduct or default on the
part of such licensee."

9. Section 25 of U.P. Act, 1976 says
that a dispute with regard to compensation
under Section 24 shall be referred to
Licensing Officer, who shall decide the
matter and his order shall be final and if
appeal is filed, subject to result of appeal.

10. Appeal against order of Licensing
Officer is provided under Section 36.
Section 43 gives overriding power to
provisions of U.P. Act, 1976, which reads
as under:-

"43. Effect of Acts and Rules etc.
inconsistent with other enactments and
instruments.- The provision of this Act or
any rule made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactument
other than this Act, or in any contract, or
in any other instruments having effect by
virtue of any enactment other than this
Act."

11. Admittedly, Central Act, 1986
was not in existence when U.P. Act, 1976
was enacted. Moreover, U.P. Act, 1976 is a
Provincial enactment and has not received
assent of President while Central Act, 1986
is a Parliamentary enactment. The effect of
Section 43 of U.P. Act, 1976, therefore, in
view of provisions contained in Article 224
will not override the provisions of Central
Act, 1986. The provisions of Central Act,
1986 are wider, provided a more deeper
judicial scrutiny of a dispute with regard to
deficiency of service and, therefore, at the
best it can be said that both the remedies
were available to Farmer and where more
than one remedy are available, the
incumbent is entitled his right to of election
and avail any of such remedies. It cannot be
said that DCF has no jurisdiction in the
matter.

12. We have to examine the matter in
the light of Article 254 of the Constitution
of India and also the fact as to which statute
can be said to be special statute.

13. U.P. Act, 1976 is an Act to govern
and control matters relating to cold
storages.
The
issue
with
regard
to
deficiency in service and reimbursement of
a Farmer due to any loss by cold storages
committing deficiency in service is an
incidental matter covered by U.P. Act,
1976. However, Central Act, 1986 is
basically to take care of a Consumer who
has made with a deficiency of service and
his right to claim damages/ compensation
of adequate amount which has to be
determined by a statutory adjudicatory
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forum which is a complete hierarchy at
District level, State level, Central level and
upto Supreme Court. Therefore, on the later
aspect, i.e., deficiency in service and
adjudicatory forum U.P. Act, 1976 is not a
special Act but Central Act, 1986 is an
special Act and shall override.

14. Learned counsel for petitioners
placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment
of this Court of Lucknow Bench in Writ
Petition No. 557 (MS) of 2009 (M/s
Behari
Colds
(P)
Ltd.
vs.
State
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Commission and others), decided on
21.08.2009 wherein it is held that if two
remedies are available the incumbent
cannot avail both of them.

15. We find that learned Single Judge has
misconstrued the Supreme Court's judgment in
Chairman,
Thiruvalluvar
Transport
Corporation
vs.
Consumer
Protection
Council, AIR 1995 SC 1384 and, therefore,
aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be correct.
When a specific right is created in a statute and
the same statute provides an adjudicatory forum
also, the aggrieved person may claim such right
before forum under the same statute and not
elsewhere but here right to claim damages and
compensation has been conferred upon
aggrieved person or the Farmer, as the case may
be, under both statutes, i.e., U.P. Act, 1976 and
Central Act, 1986, therefore, the right to claim
damages was conferred by both statutes and
forums for adjudication was also provided
therein, hence it is open to person concerned to
elect the forum where he wants to have his right
adjudicated.

16. We, therefore, find no error in the
order passed by District Consumer Forum
on the ground of jurisdiction. Writ petition
lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)09ILR A564
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

WRIT - C No. 27848 of 2018
connected with
WRIT - C No. 27876 of 2018
&
WRIT - C No. 20101 of 2018
&
WRIT - C No. 27873 of 2018
&
WRIT - C No. 1947 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 27846 of 2018

Shamshad Ali & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shailesh Upadhyay, Sri Manu Khare, Sri
Rishi Kant Rai, Sri Vijay Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, Sri
Raghvendra Dwivedi

(A) Civil Law -Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Section 4-notification, Section 6-declaration,
Section
11-compensation-Section
18reference, Section 20-Cognizance of cases
by
lok
Adalats-section
28-A-Redetermination
of
the
amount
of
compensation on the basis of the award of
the Court-Legal Services Authority Act, 1987
-Section 21-Award of Lok Adalat- impugned
order set aside.

land of the petitioners - covered by the
notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquistion Act, 1894 - an award under Section
11 of the Act was published on 28.11.1984
fixing Rs. 20/- per square yard as compensation
for the land acquired - reference made under