PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                            CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 199/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Prafulla Kumar Dash, Sr. Journalist

Near Bullet Gym,

At-Modipara, Sambalpur

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.        

Mob No. 9437219897                                          ………………Complainant

-Vrs-

1. A.P. Singh,

Parking Area Contractor, Sambalpur Railway Station,

Behind Railway Division off.

At/PO-Modipara, Sambalpur-768002

2. D.R.M. Sambalpur Railway Division,

At/PO-Modipara, Sambalpur-768002

3. Sr. D.C.M. Sambalpur Railway Division,

At/PO-Modipara, Sambalpur-768002                           ………………Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- None
3. For the O.P. No.2 & 3        :- Sri. P.B. Mishra Addl. Standing Counsel Govt. of India.

Date of Filing:06.11.2023,Date of Hearing :12.02.2024,Date of Judgement :27.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 01.11.2023 5.50 A.M. the Complainant parked his Jupiter TVS Scooter OD-15J-7003 in the parking near GRP office Sambalpur Railways Station. The Complainant informed the young employee sitting in the counter that the Complainant has to board Sambalpuri-Puri intercity No.18303 and return back in Train No. 18304. The employee demanded Rs. 30/- to-wards parking fees. In the slip for two wheelers for 12 hours Rs. 9/- for more than 12 hours Rs. 12/- has been offered. The Complainant asked the employee about excess charges taken but he could not give any satisfactory answer. The Complainant due to arrival of the train purchased a ticket paying Rs. 30/-. Due to delay in train timing 18304 the Complainant reached Sambalpur Station one hour late, shown the slip to the employee in the counter and when the vehicle was taken out, the counter-employee refunded Rs. 06/-. The counter employee could not give any answer about excess charges. In reply the parking employee answered that due to agreement with railways authority such charges of Rs. 24/- was taken. During night about 12MN, his careless answer gave mental torture to the Complainant. Even the employee not returned the parking ticket. The Complainant has filed the photo-copy of the parking ticket taken through his mobile phone. The other public, who has parked their two wheelers also paying Rs. 30/- and not even refund made. The quality of service was also very poor. The vehicle was covered with dust. The slip No. 2701 in the name of contractor some writings have been attempted to cut down in black ink. For deficiency in service and excess charges complaint has been filed.
2. The Railway parking contractor after receipt of notice also not filed his version and hence set ex-parte.
3. The O.P. No.2 & 3 Railways authority in their version submitted that for parking of  two wheelers and four wheelers at Sambalpur station in Sambalpur Division, East Cost Railway tender was opened through E-Auction Tender on 18.10.2022 at 12.30 hrs as per catalogue published dated 27.09.2022. Sri. Ajit Pratap Singh, Nawalpur Basahi, Shivpur Tarna, Varanasi, U.P. 221003 was awarded the NSG-3 category parking contract for period of three years w.e.f. 06.12.2022 to 05.12.2025 vide agreement NO. C-SBP PARKING-SBP-04-2022 dated 18.10.2022. The parking contractor deposited Rs. 1,30,000/- 5% of Annual licencing fees as Security money and parking fees collection charge was assigned.

The parking rate of slab of 12 hours to 24 hours is Rs. 10/-. Total parking fees including GST 18%(Rs. 10/- + 18 % GST on Rs. 10/- = Rs. 11.80 P. say Rs. 12/-). The contractor should display at the parking site separately for all classes of vehicles.

As per scope of work and special condition of contract of parking Agreement on account of substantial complaints of over charging, deviation to agreement clause, poor hygienic standard of parking plot, misbehaviour or any other irregularities suitable penalty will be imposed. The Complainant not filed any complaint before O.P. No.2 & 3. After receipt of commission notice as preliminary enquiry was conducted and found that in time of parking vehicle was 5.50 A.M. and out time was 11.54 P.M. The staff of O.P. No.1 admitted receipt of advance of Rs. 30/- and at the time of out refunded Rs,. 10/- after deducting Rs. 20/- to the Complainant. Rs. 18/- was to be returned to the Complainant but the Complainant fled away without waiting. There is no any misbehave. The parking side is not fully covered and bike was parked in front of road inside, hence there was dust on the bike. Preliminary enquiry conducted on 25.11.2023.

The O.P. No.1 is fully responsible for any violation of Special condition of contract. The O.P. No.2 & 3(railways) are not responsible for any over charging, poor hygienic standard of parking plot, misbehaviour or other irregularities of the contractor. O.P. No.2 has taken action and warned the O.P. No.1 for violation of standard condition of contract. There is no any deficiency on the part of O.Ps.

4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. PNR NO. 6727469256 Chair car was issued by Railways authority for 01.11.2023 departure time 6.00 AM and arrival at Bhubaneswar at 11.05 on 01.11.2023. Prafulla Das was the passenger and paid Rs. 578.60P/ against seat No. CNF/C2/6/. Again for 01.11.2023 from Bhubaneswar to Sambalpur seat No. CNF/C2/73 was allotted to the Complainant and arrival time was 22.30 hrs. Reservation has been made jointly by the Complainant and one Pradeep Behera. From parking ticket No. 2701 dated 01.11.2023 it reveals that the parking time of vehicle of Complainant is 5.50A.M. and advance payment Rs. 30/- received. The O.P. No.1 has tried to cut down some writings and the writings are invisible. Photograph of the vehicle No. OD 15J-7003 on the date.

The O.P. no.2 & 3 field the following documents:

1. Auction catalogue published on 27.09.2022.
2. Contract for award of management of parking at Sambalpur Station measuring 4370.50 square meter.
3. Contract Agreement No. C-SBP-PARKING-SBP-04 dated 18.10.2022.
4. Scope of work and special conditions with parking schedule rate annexure ‘B’.
5. Report of Sri. C.K. Kaushal JSGR-HKG chief commercial Inspector.

5. After perusal of the pleadings and submissions of the parties the following observations are made:

1. It is the admission of both the parties that the Complainant parked his vehicle NO. OD-15J-7003 on 01.11.2023 at 5.50 A.M. to 11.54 P.M. for a period of about 12 hours. The O.P. No.2 & 3 railways authority admitted that for about 12 hours to 24 hours parking, fees is Rs. 10/- + GST 18 % total Rs. 11.80 P say Rs. 12/-. The O.P. has received Rs. 30/- as advance on the day. As per complainant Rs. 06/- was refunded to him but the O.P. No.2 & 3 in preliminary enquiry found refund of Rs. 10/- to the Complainant.
2. From the scope of work and special conditions clauses between O.P. No.1 and O.P. no.2 & 3 it reveals that rates have been prescribed for different categories of vehicles for upto 3 hours, 3 hours to 6 hours, 6 hours to 12 hours and 12 hours to 24 hours and monthly parking fees. For two wheelers as per statement of O.P. No.2 & 3 the Complainant parked his vehicle for 18 hours four minutes and per chart the fees is Rs. 10/-+ GST 18%= Rs. 10/- + Rs. 1.80P. Total pay Rs. 12/-. The O.P. No.2 & 3 admitted that excess charges has been taken from the Complainant. As per Complainant, he is entitled to refund of Rs. 12/- whereas the O.Ps stated, refund of Rs. 8/- as the O.P. No.1 refunded of Rs. 10/- to the Complainant but to that effect no any document has been filed. It is proved that excess fees has been collected from the Complainant and he is entitled for refund of Rs. 12/- from the O.P. no.1, contractor Sri. A.P. Singh.
3. The second point of consideration is that whether the O.P. No. 2 & 3 Railways authorities are not liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. From the scope of work and special conditions agreement it reveals that the relation between O.P. No.1 and railways authority is Lessor and Lessee/Licencee. As per clause ‘B’ of the Miscellaneous agreement “ it shall be deemed that while submitting the Bid, the Bidder agrees and releases Railways, its employees, agent and advisers, irrevocable, unconditionally, fully and finally from any and all liability for claims, losses, damages, costs, expenses and liabilities in any way related to or arising from the exercise of any rights and/or performance………..”

Again in Responsibility of Licensee clause it reveals:

“ The parking Licensee will be responsible for maintain the cleanliness on parking area and all expenses in this regard will be borne by him.”

From the report of Chief Commercial officer dated 25.11.2023 it is clear that:

1. The O.P. No.1 has charged excess fees from the Complainant.
2. There was no any misbehaviour from the side of O.P. No.1
3. The parking stand is not fully covered and there was dust on the bike.

From the above report of Railways authority it is clear that charging excess fees is not only unfair trade practice but also deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 contractor. Further the railway authority in report clarified that the parking area is not clean as the parking is not fully covered and there was dust on the vehicle from this it is clear that the O.P. No.1 had not taken cleanliness measures, not covered the parking area to make dust free and hygienic.

4. The third point of consideration is that display of rate chart in the parking area. Sri. Das Complainant submitted that no display has been made. In reply O.P. No.2 & 3 submitted there should be a display rate chart as per para-3 of scope of work and special condition of contract. The O.P. No.1 in order to supress his unfair trade not made any rate display which amounts to monopolistic practice. As per agreement the total liability is on O.P. No.1 In the affidavit evidence the O.P. No.2 & 3 submitted that Rs. 71,000/- fine has been imposed on the parking contractor and warning letter has been issued. From this very fact it is clear that only after complaint action was taken by O.P. No. 2 & 3 and prior to that the Railways authority remained dormant. It is the duty of Railways authority to make periodical visit and ensure that the contractor is working properly but the O.P. No.2 & 3 failed to do so. There is no any control over O.P. No.1 prior to the incident and only after complaint before this Commission eye catching action has been taken. In the meantime the contractor/O.P.No.1 exploited thousands of Railways passengers. It proves the lapses of Railways Authority. For the acts of O.Ps the Complainant/a sensible citizen during night harassed.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint following order is passed:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed ex-parte against O.P. No.1 and with contest against O.P. No2. & 3. The O.P. No.1 is directed to refund Rs. 12/- with 12 % interest P.A. w.e.f. 01.11.2023. For deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and monopolistic practice a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- is to be paid by the O.P. No.1 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of non-payment the entire amount will carry 14% interest P.A. till realisation.

The O.P. No.1 is directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Consumer Welfare fund of the District for his monopolistic practice.

The O.P. No.2 & 3 are directed to ensure:

1. That the contractor will not exploit any consumer in future.
2. The parking should be fully covered so that it will be dust free.
3. Display of rate chart be made immediately.
4. Cleanliness of the parking area with drinking water facilities and lavatories are provided.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27^th day of Feb 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.