IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 77/10 DATED 12.05.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant G.N. Ravisha S/o G.D. Narayana, Gumbaz Road, Ganjam, Srirangapatna (T), Mandya District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.D, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, South-Western Railway, Mysore Division, Mysore.<br /> 2. Divisional Officer, Commercial Branch, South-Western Railway, Mysore Division, Mysore.<br /> 3. B. Chandra, B.H. Colony, Bilidegallu village, Keragodu Hobli, Mandya (T), Mandya District. <br /> (By Sri. C.S, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 08.03.2010<br /> Date of order : 12.05.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 Month 4 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Under Section of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party in not affixing the board regarding parking charges and further, collecting excess parking charges. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to return excess parking charges of Rs.7/- and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- as well as cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. The third opposite party to whom the notice was issued, in the version has denied excess charge for parking and so also, non-fixing of the board. It is stated that, the complainant had parked his vehicle in the parking stand and had obtained receipt, but later came to collect the vehicle stating that, the receipt was lost and hence, exchange of words to ok place between the complainant and the boys, who were looking after the parking stand and later the complainant by producing the receipt collected the vehicle and balance amount was refunded.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of third respective contentions, both the parties have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons, our finding is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Point no. 1:- From the material on record, it has been established that, on 21.11.2009, the complainant parked his vehicle in the parking place at Mysore Railway Station of which third opposite party is contractor. A receipt was given collecting Rs.10/-. That is admitted by the third opposite party in the version. The third opposite party contended that, Rs.7/- has been refunded and hence, there is no excess collection.<br /> <br /> 7. To prove, refund of Rs.7/- to the complainant, safely it can be said that, there is no cogent and acceptable evidence. Even according to the third opposite party, he was not present on the spot and personally he has not refunded the amount to the complainant. As claimed, the boys who were looking after the parking spot, refunded the amount. There is no evidence of those boys on record. On the other hand, the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, in fact, he paid Rs.10/-, for which admittedly receipt was issued and the Xerox copy is on record. Hence, in the absence of proof by the third opposite party regarding refund of Rs.7/-, claim of the complainant that, third opposite party collected Rs.7/- excess parking charge has to be believed and accepted.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has further contended that, no board is exhibited in the parking spot showing the parking charges. What is parking charges is placed on record by the complainant, which is obtained by the Railway Authorities. To substantiate the said claim, the complainant has produced certain photographs wherein no board could be seen. Though, the opposite party contended that, there is board, to prove that fact there is no other evidence. If at all there was board as contended, the opposite party could have produced photographs or other cogent evidence.<br /> <br /> 9. For the complainant, the ruling reported in 1993(2) CPRP. 499 is relied upon. Considering the law laid down in this ruling and the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The third opposite party to refund Rs.7./- to the complainant within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 3. The third opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. The third opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 12th May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />