Delhi

New Delhi

CC/831/2009

Laxmi Narain Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Deputy Chief General Manger - Opp.Party(s)

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/831/09                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Laxmi Narain Sharma,

B-122, Yadav Nagar Samay Pur,

Delhi-110042

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

The Deputy Chief General Manager,

Delhi Transport Corporation, Scindia House,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

 

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

        Complainant was an Ex-serviceman. In that capacity, he was eligible for placing his private bus with DTC on one of the routes permitted by OP on kilometers basis on certain terms and conditions duly executed an agreement between him & DTC, to help complainant earning his livelihood, being an ex serviceman. The grievance of the complainant is that he was not given copy of agreement that OP has taken a security deposit of Rs.10,000/- and stand fee of Rs.7,500/- per month, for providing stand where the bus has to halt to pick up and drop passengers. It appears that the bus of complainant was not available for some time due to it being detained for checkup. The permit was deposited with OP. He was allegedly given a non-profitable route in rural areas and for few months he did not ply the bus, for route mentioned above. He asked OP to return his security deposit and stand fee for the period bus was not plying and the original permit. This, OP failed to provide. Therefore this complaint.

        The OP filed a reply, admitted the execution of agreement and it placed the copy of it with reply. It stated that complainant had deposited only copy of permit. It admitted that security deposit was taken and that stand fee is chargeable irrespective of whether the bus plies or not. OP also stated that OP is not a service provider and complainant should knock at Civil Court to demand Rs.10,000/- of security deposit.

        We have considered the material on record, evidence, reply and written arguments of the parties. There is no merit in the contention of OP that, complainant should go to Civil Court for recovery of security deposit of Rs.10,000/-. The remedy of Consumer Court is in addition to any other civil remedy. There is also no merit in the contention of OP that OP is not a service provider. The complainant being an ex-serviceman was eligible for availing certain routes offered by OP, on contract in KM scheme, under certain terms and mutual obligations. OP has admitted that agreement was executed between it and complainant. It has not explained why the copy of agreement was not given to complainant; which is a sever deficiency. We have gone through the agreement. We do not find any stipulation of “Stand Fee” in the agreement. The OP has admitted that it has charged stand fee.  The agreement provides bus shall halt at designated stops. The stops are for convenience of the passengers and in no case bus operator can be charged for these stops. OP has not produced any document or policy paper or circular of OP in support of charging this fee and the condition that it is chargeable by OP, even if bus does not operate for some reasons. It has not denied the period during which the fee was charged as mentioned in the complaint. We thus, hold OP liable for charging stand fee, not mentioned in the agreement, nor provided and not returning it for the period, when bus did not ply.  However, OP is correct for the extent that for plying of bus permit for STA is required, for which OP cannot be held liable if for some reasons bus did not ply for want of holding up of permit.

        We thus, hold OP guilty of deficiency and direct OP to

1. Return security deposit of Rs.10,000/- with interest of 9% from date of demand till payment
2. Return the stand fee of Rs.7,500 charged for the period Dec 2002 to Feb 2003.
3. Pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in not giving the complete copy of agreement executed.

        We also award a compensation of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for deficiency, harassment and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expense in last 5 years.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

Pronounced in open Court on 07.04.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER