IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of March, 2009
Filed on 11.02.08
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.24/08
Between
Complainant:- `Opposite Party:-
Sri.Sivadasan, S/o Krishnan, Pattanakkad Grama Panchayat (Special Grade),
Jyothish Bhavanam, Pattanakkad.P.O., Pattanakkad.P.O,
Near Ponnamvely Bridge, Cherthala – 688 531
Pattanakkad Village, Pattanakkad Muri, Represented by its Secretary. Cherthala Thaluk. (By Adv.K.N.Azhakesan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant had been carrying out the sale of chicken in one of the stalls of the opposite party in 2006-07. The complainant had won the said shop room from the opposite party through spirited bidding. The complainant had to remit a sum of Rs.76,600/-(Rupees seventy six thousand six hundred only) as license fee for the said purpose. The complainant ekes out his lively hood from the aforesaid business. The complainant had used to burry the waste materials carefully and neatly in far-off places. When matters stood thus, the opposite party without proper notice or intimation, on 22nd October 2007 with police aid closed down the complainant's chicken stall. The opposite party obstructed the business of the complainant on allegation of anomalous disposal of chicken waste by the complainant in the surrounding vicinity. The opposite party's act is arbitrary and unlawful. With the result, the complainant sustained huge monetary loss. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.31,9l7/-(thirty one thousand nine hundred and seventeen only) towards the balance of the license fee from October 2007 to March 2008 amongst other relief. The complainant on 5th November 2007 caused to send a legal notice to the opposite party claiming the balance remitted money and compensation that runs up to Rs.1,87,4l7/-(one lac eighty seven thousand four hundred and seventeen only). There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which unilaterally locked the complainant shop. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up, and filed version. The opposite party's contention is that the complainant is not a consumer. He auctioned out one of the shop rooms from the opposite party by public bid for chicken trade. According to the opposite party, the said business was not his livelihood, but profiteering. The complainant did not even obtained certificate from the Pollution Control Board. The complainant unauthorizedly butchered the fowl in the stall and dumped the waste materials in and around the proximate premises as well as 'Ponnamveli Canal'. The waste materials the complainant so abandoned got decay and was spreading foul smell in the surrounding area. What's more the said premise acted as breeding ground for mosquitoes and other germs that widely spread infectious diseases, the opposite party contents. Notwithstanding several warnings directly and through notices, the complainant pursued the very same policy, and the people in the locality lodged complaint against the complainant before the opposite party. The reports of the Pollution Control Board and the PHC Medical Officer were also not in favor of the complainant. In this context, as a last resort, the opposite party was constrained to cause the complainant's shop closed, the opposite party submits. The complainant has breached the covenants in the contract with the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party asserts.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, its secretary was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts. Bl to Bl0 were marked.
3. Taking into consideration, the contentions raised by the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is a 'consumer'?
(b) Whether the opposite party closed down the complainant's chicken stall unlawfully?
(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
4. Concededly, the complainant won the shop from the opposite party room by bidding. The complainant had to remit an amount of Rs.76,600/-(Rupees seventy six thousand six hundred only) as license fee for conducting a chicken trade therein. Consequently, the opposite party is obliged to provide adequate infrastructure for carrying out the said business in a neat and hygienic manner. Needless to say, the complainant hired the service of the opposite party. Obviously the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party in every sense. As we have already observed, the complainant auctioned out a stall from the opposite party to carry out the business of chicken. To that effect, he remitted an amount of Rs.76,600/-(Rupees seventy six thousand six hundred only) as license fee. Thus, the auctioning and the giving away of the stall on receiving the concerned fees etc. all are governed by the relevant provisions of ‘The Kerala Panchayat Raj (issuance of license and control of public and private markets) Rules, 1956’. By the way, the question to be addressed is that whether the opposite party is empowered to close down the complainant stall in the manner the opposite party did. Going by Rule 5 of 'The Kerala Panchayat Raj (issuance of license and control of public and private markets) Rules, 1956' it is manifest that the permit so issued by the opposite party to the complainant can only be cancelled with the approval of the Panchayat committee. We perused the materials placed on record by the opposite party. We made a searching survey of the voluminous documents Exbts B1 to B11 brought on record by the opposite party. Apparently, no material is forthcoming to suggest that the opposite party has availed the approval of the Panchayat committee before causing the complainant's stall shutting down on 22nd October 2007. No doubt, the opposite party closed down the complainant's shop without sufficient authority. The complainant was allowed to conduct chicken business only up to 22nd October 2007. In this context, the complainant is entitled to the balance amount from Rs.76,600/-(Rupees seventy six thousand six hundred only) he remitted with the opposite party as license fee. We hold that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount he remitted as license fee subject to the adjustment of the amount up to 22nd October 2007 till date he carried out the said business. Thus the said balance when computed in the manner aforesaid runs to the tune of Rs.31,9l7/- (Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred and seventeen only).
For the forgoing discussion, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.31,9l7/-(Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred and seventeen only) with 9% interest from 22nd October 2007 till its realization. Taking into consideration the particular facts and circumstance of the instant case, no order is there on compensation. The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs.1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand only). The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30days of date of this order. Before parting with this, we may hasten to observe that the complainant is at liberty to take up the issue of compensation to the appropriate Civil Court.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sivadasan (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Form No.XXXIII dated, 29.03.07
Ext. A2 - Notice from the opposite party dated, 10.10.07
Ext. A3 - The Auction/Quotation Notice dated, 14.09.07
Ext. A4 - The copy of the letter (Regd. with Acknowledgement)
Ext. A5 - Reply notice dated, 28.11.07
Evidence of the opposite party:-
PW1 - B.Krishnakumar (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The Notice from the Pattanakkad Grama Panchayath Office dated, 10.09.2007
Ext. B2 - The copy of the Auction diary
Ext. B3 - The copy of the Letter from the Medical Officer, Vettackal PHC dated,
19.10.07
Ext. B4 - Copy of the Advocate Notice dated, 05.11.07
Ext. B5 - The copy of the reply notice dated, 28.11.07
Ext. B6 - The copy of the notice from Pollution Control Board dated, 18.06.07
Ext. B7 - The copy of the reply notice from the opposite party to the Pollution Control
Board dated, 20.11.07
Ext. B8 - The copy of the letter to the S.I of Police, Pattanakkad dated, 17.10.07
Ext. B9 - The copy of the notice from the opposite party dated, 10.09.07
Ext. B10 - The Public complaint to the opposite party dated, 02.04.07
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
