Delhi

North East

CC/134/2023

Vijay Bahadur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dedha Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.134/23

In the matter of:

	Sh. Vijay Bahadur, S/o Sh. Ram Babu, R/o V-372, Gali No. 6, Dispensary wali Gali, Arvind Mohalla, Ghonda, Garhi Mendu, North East, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.           3.	M/s Dedha Enterprises, Through its Prop., Kiran Pal Dedha, F-44, 3rdPusta Parshadi Mohalla, New Usmanpur, Delhi 110053   Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner Office at: 419, Udyog Sadan, First Floor, Patparganj, Industrial Area, Delhi 110092   The Deputy Director (Horticulture), Horticulture Division-IX/DDA Vivek Vihar, Delhi 95	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

16.05.2023 24.01.2024 20.03.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he parked his vehicle bearing no. DL1RTB0302 on regular basis under the care taking of Opposite Party No. 1 and pay the parking fees to the Opposite Party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 is running a parking which is authorized by Delhi Municipal Corporation i.e. Opposite Party No. 2. In the month of April 2023, the Complainant approached Delhi State Transport Authority at Burari to pay the tax of his said vehicle i.e. commercial vehicle and official of Delhi State Transport Authority refused to receive the tax from the Complainant. On asking the reason, Delhi State Transport Authority, told that the said vehicle had been locked by the Rajpur Road/VIU Burari, Delhi without any cause and reason. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Transport Authority of Rajpur Road to unlock the said vehicle but the official of Transport Authority of Rajpur Road informed that the said vehicle was locked by DDA and advised to approach the DDA to unlock the said vehicle. Complainant stated that after getting the information and instruction from the Transport Authority of Rajpur Road, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 3, and they told that some challans were lying pending regarding the said vehicle regarding unauthorized parking with the office of DDA and handover the challan status to the Complainant. Complainant stated that he told Opposite Party No. 3 that it is not entitled to raise the challan as the Complainant had parked his vehicle in authorized parking but officials of DDA demand for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- by demand draft in favour of the      Sr. A.O/CAU/EZ/NGT to clear all the challans of the said vehicle and after that they would issue the NOC for cancelling the locked order. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 showed the authorization document of the parking which were issued by the Opposite Party No. 2.  Complainant stated that he demand the challan amount from the Opposite Party No. 1 but Opposite Party No. 1 refused to pay the challan amount and stated that the said parking was fully authorized by the EDMC and nobody could raise any challan upon the said parking. Complainant stated that he suffered from the financial loss of Rs. 1,500/- per day since April. Complainant many times requested to the Opposite Parties to cancel the locked order but Opposite Parties did not pay any heed upon the requests of the Complainant. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to unlock the vehicle of the Complainant and to make the payment of financial loss of Rs. 1,500/- per day since April 2023 along with interest @ 18 % p.a. along with the challan amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 40,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.09.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he used to park his vehicle bearing no. DL1RTB0302 at the parking of Opposite Party No. 1 and he used to pay the parking charges to it. As per the case of the Complainant, the said parking was authorized one. When the Complainant approached the State Transport Authority for paying the tax of his vehicle he was told that his vehicle had been locked by the Rajpur Road/ VIU Burari Authority. When the Complainant approached the Transport Authority at Rajpur Road, he was told that his vehicle was locked by DDA. Then the Complainant approached DDA for unlocking his vehicle. The Complainant approached Delhi Development Authority i.e. Opposite Party No. 3 and he was told that some challans were pending against his vehicle for unauthorized parking.
5. The case of the Complainant is that the parking of Opposite Party No. 1 is authorized one. The perusal of letter no. AO/RP(Cell)/EDMC/2021/D-569  dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure E) issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 to M/s Dedha Enterprises i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 shows that the site, where the parking was done, was allotted to Opposite Party No. 1 for a period of 02 years w.e.f 05.03.2021 to 04.03.2023. The said site is at Pusta No. 3 (Site Serial no. 06). The possession of the said site was also handed over to Opposite Party No. 1. The information regarding the allotment of said site was given by Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. East Delhi Municipal Corporation to Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Deputy Director, DDA. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case. The case of the Complainant is supported by affidavit and documents referred above.
6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has proved that he used to park his vehicle at the parking of the Opposite Party No. 1 and the said parking was authorized one which was allotted to Opposite Party No. 1 by Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 has also given the information of allotment of said parking in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 3. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party No. 3 has wrongly got locked the vehicle of the Complainant. Therefore, it is ordered that the Opposite Party No. 3 shall take steps for getting the vehicle of the Complainant unlocked by the Delhi State Transport Authority within one month of this order. A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant by Opposite Party No. 3 along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. It is also ordered that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall also be paid by the Opposite Party No. 3 to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery .
7. Order announced on 20.03.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Copy of this order be also given to the Delhi State Transport Authority

at Burari and Rajpur for information only free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)