DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 24 of 11
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 10.01.2011
DATE OF ORDER: -27.10.2017
Dr. Maman Chand Sharma, aged about 69 years, son of Shri Palla Ram, resident of A-12, Giriraj Colony, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Divisional Railway Manager, North Western, Bikaner (Raj) through the Station Superintendent, Railway Station, NWR, Bhiwani.
- The Station Superintendent, Railway Station, NWR, Bhiwani.
- Shri Dharmender, Contractor, Rly Station Parking, Bhiwani through the Station Superintendent, Railway Station, NWR, Bhiwani. (Given up vide order dated 4.9.2017).
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Mr. Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Complainant in person.
Shri Mahipal Tanwar, Advocate for OPs no. 1 & 2.
OP no. 3 given up.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant parked his moped, Auto Cycle No. HNB-3078 at Railway Parking, Railway Junction, NWR, Bhiwani on 13.5.2010 at 4.00 a.m. and the OP charged Rs. 8/- & issued to complainant R. No. 8088 bearing stamp of parking charges. It is alleged that when the complainant returned from his journey he asked the OP no. 3 to return the balance amount after realizing the proper and legitimate rate of parking and he did not care for his request and snubbed the complainant stating that he has charged the rate what he charges from other persons who parked their vehicles at Parking Stand. It is further alleged that the complainant parked his aforesaid moped on 8.6.2010, 16.6.2010, 6.7.2010, 13.7.2010 and 20.7.2010 at about 4.00 a.m. and the OP arbitrarily charged Rs. 6/- and issued to complainant R No. 8172, at first Rs. 10/- then Rs. 6/-, R Nos. 8200, 8249, 3691 and 9230 respectively and when the complainant raised objection against excess parking charges, the OP no. 3 did not accede to his request to charge the legitimate and proper parking charges
2. It is further alleged that the complainant again parked his aforesaid moped on 18.8.2010 and 19.10.2010 at about 4.00 a.m. and this time OP no. 3 crossed all the limits and charged Rs. 10/- and issued to complainant R Nos. 7676 and 729, respectively and when the complainant protested against excess charges, OP no. 3 snubbed complainant stating that he would charge according to his sweet will and it is up to complainant whether to park his vehicle or not and he complainant had to pay what he wanted. It is alleged that on 29.11.2010, the complainant parked his aforesaid moped at about 4.00 a.m. and despite complainant’s protest, the OP no. 3 again charged Rs. 10/- and issued R. No. 3800 to complainant and after returning from journey about 11.45 p.m. on the same day, the complainant made efforts to lodge a complaint against the OP no. 3 with Deputy Station Superintendent, Bhiwani on duty office of the OP no. 2 who did not cooperate the complainant. It is further alleged that on 14.12.2010, the complainant again parked his aforesaid moped and despite complainant’s protest, the OP no. 3 again charged Rs. 10/- and issued R. No. 3649 to complainant and after returning from journey about 11.45 p.m. on the same day, the complainant demanded complaint book from Deputy Station Superintendent, Bhiwani but instead of giving complaint book, he accompanied with complainant to parking place and asked the man on duty to show the receipt book to R. No. 3649, but he avoided saying that the man on duty in the morning took that receipt book with him and the matter was left for the next day i.e. 15.12.2010, to be resolved but doing nothing. It is further alleged that before filing the present complaint the complainant called on Dy. Station Superintendent on 8.1.2010 at 8.40 a.m. to know that action has been taken against OP no. 3 but he avoided stating that he had received no information for action against OP no. 3. For this, the Dy. Station Superintendent is required to submit the status report of action taken against him. It is further alleged that OP no. 3 has been excessively and dishonestly charging money from hundreds of owners of vehicles who parked their vehicle at Railway Parking Bhiwani in collusion with OP no. 2. It is further alleged that the complainant requested OP no. 1 to supply rates of parking at Railway Station, Bhiwani keeping in view the type of vehicle vide application no. MCS/2010/405 dated 29.7.2010, but he has not supplied rates of parking till date. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
3. On appearance, OPs no. 1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is liable to dismissed with cost as Western Railway has not been impleaded as party as it was the necessary party to defend the complaint on behalf of Railway. It is submitted that the competent Railway authority had entered a contract of Cycle Stand with the OP no. 3 for the period of three years ie. From 15.11.2008 to 16.11.2011 but as he has violated terms and conditions of the contract, so his contract had already been cancelled by the D.C.M. Bikaner on 4.12.2009. It is submitted that as per rate list of railway department authorized to the contractor to collect Rs. 4/- per vehicle only for 04 hours, after that 04 hours to 21 hours he has authorized for Rs. 6/-. It is further submitted that as per pleading of the complainant he parked his vehicle at 4.00 a.m. on 14.12.2010 and after that he has taken to the same from the cycle stand at about 11.45 p.m., so contractor had charged amount Rs. 10/- as per rate list. It is submitted that there is no extra amount charged by the OP no. 3. It is submitted that the version of the complainant cannot believable as the contract of the respondent no. 3 had already cancelled on 4.12.2009 and complainant has alleged the period 13.5.2010 to 14.12.2010 of dispute with the OP no. 3. It is submitted that no extra charge ever been charged by the contractor and the complainant had not lodged any complaint with the office of OP no. 1 & 2. It is submitted that the complainant has not mentioned even the name of officer whom he has lodged the complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant hs demanded information through RTI Act and the same had already been supplied by office of OP no. 1. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs no. 1 & 2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 3 given up vide order dated 4.9.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. The complainant in person filed the written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the OPs no. 1 & 2 and complainant in person also.
7. The complainant in his written arguments reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the contractor of Railway Parking at Railway Station, Bhiwani charged excessively and extorting money daily from hundreds of owners of the vehicle who park their vehicles at Railway Parking, Bhiwani. He submitted that the complainant met with Deputy Station Superintendent regarding the action against contractor on his complaint. He submitted that the complainant requested the OP no. 1 to supply the rates of parking at Railway Parking, Bhiwani vide his application dated 8.7.2010 Annexure C-11 but the OP did not supply the parking rates to the complainant. He submitted that the contractor incollusion with OP no. 2 is indulged in unfair trade practice because the OP no. 2 has not taken any action against OP no. 3.
8. Learned counsel for OP no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that as per the contention of the complainant made by him in his complaint he parked his vehicle at Railway Station on various dates and has contended that the contractor charged Rs. 6/- for one day parking from 4.00 a.m. to 11.45 p.m. and also charged Rs. 10/- each on other occasions. The counsel for the OP no. 1 & 2 submitted that as per the agreement Annexure R-1 the rates of parking have been mentioned on the last page of the said agreement. According to the OP no. 1 & 2, the rates for first 4 hours was fixed at Rs. 4/- and thereafter for every subsequent 24 hours, besides Rs. 4/- a sum of Rs. 6/- has to be charged. He submitted that in this way the contractor can charge Rs. 10/- for the scooter/moped upto parking for 24 hours. He submitted that as per the allegations of the complainant, the contractor has not charged more than Rs. 10/- on any occasion. Hence the contractor charged the amount as per the agreement Annexure R-1. There are no excessive charges taken by the contractor/OP no. 3 from the complainant. He further submitted that the contract of railway parking was for 3 years from 15.11.2008 to 16.11.2011 but the OP no. 3 has violated the terms and conditions of contract so his contract was terminated on 4.12.2009 by OP no. 2. He submitted that the complainant has alleged the period of parking of his vehicle from 13.5.2010 to 14.12.2010 which is prior to the period of the contract of OP no. 3 which was terminated on 4.12.2009, as such the version of the complainant charging excessively by OP no. 3 is false and baseless, and cannot be taken into consideration.
9. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have gone through the relevant material on the record, carefully. The complainant has alleged that the contractor of Railway Parking/OP no. 3 has charged excessively but has not mentioned how much amount has been charged in excess from him for the parking of his moped at Railway Parking, Bhiwani. The complainant has produced the photo copies of the receipts issued by the contractor of railway parking Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10. The receipts Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 have been issued for Rs. 6/- only and receipts Annexure C-7 to Annexure C-10 have been issued for Rs. 10/- only. No justification could be given by counsel for OPs no. 1 & 2 that why the contractor has charged Rs. 6/- and then Rs. 10/- for parking of the vehicle from the complainant for the same period.
10. It has been contended by the OP no. 1 & 2 in their reply that no extra charge has been taken by the contractor and he has charged as per the list from the complainant. This fact cannot be denied that the contractors of railway parking are not properly displaying the list of parking charges for cycle/scooter/motor cycle etc. and sometimes arbitrary charging excess parking fee from the owners of the parked vehicle and in case any person protest against the excess charges then he is mis-behaved by the contractor. The OP no. 1 & 2 being the principal and entering into contract with the contractor for the railway parking is bound to take care that no excess charge is taken by the contractor from the vehicle owners and the rates of parking are properly displayed in the parking area.
11. That if the parking rates of various type of vehicle had been properly displayed in the parking area then this would have not given the rise of this litigation. The display of parking rates in the parking area has also not been contended by the OP no. 1 & 2 in his reply, it means that parking rates were not displayed. Moreover, the OP no. 1 & 2 failed to provide the parking rates to the complainant on his request. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the OP no. 1 & 2. We direct the OP no. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. We, further, would like to make direction in these circumstances of the case to OP no. 1 & 2 to stop unfair trade practice committed by the contractors of railway parking. We direct the OP no. 1 & 2 that the parking rates duly printed be displayed in the parking area with the name of the contractor, to avoid unfair trade practice of excess charges then the stipulated rates. The rates of parking must be in vernacular language with full details of the vehicles and parking fee with duration of parking and it be in a simple language be printed and displayed, so that it cannot be manipulated by the contractor. We direct the OP no. 1 & 2 to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and the action taken report be submitted to this District Forum within 45 days. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.10.2017
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
