DATE OF FILING: 8.6.2011
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.02.2016
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
Deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) is the grievance of the complainant in this consumer dispute.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he being an unemployed graduate and for self-employment started an advertising agency in the name and style of “21st Century Advertising Agency” at Berhampur. The complainant was awarded the sole advertising rights at Rayagada Railway Station (Outside) area by the O.P.No.1 for a period of 3 years commencing from 4.4.2010 to 3.4.2013. The complainant was given 1500 Sqft space for erecting hoardings. The complainant deposited proper fees with the Opposite Party No.1 amounting to Rs.41,667/- and for the purpose of hoarding made an expenditure of Rs.65,000/-. While the license period is valid from 5.4.2010 to 4.4.2013 the O.P.No.4 illegally demolished the hoarding without notice on 27.10.2010 for which the complainant lodged complaint on 8.11.2010 with O.Ps. On receipt of complaint dated 8.11.2010, the O.P.No.1 informed the O.P.No.3 for payment of compensation on 7.1.2011. The complainant issued a legal notice through his Advocate on 28.1.2011 but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay of Rs.65,000/- only towards the loss and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and cost of litigation of Rs.4000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Despite valid notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 3& 4 failed to enter their appearance and as a result they were set ex-parte on 2.1.2014. The O.P. No.3 & 4 through their learned counsel filed a petition on 16.12.2015 to set aside the ex-parte order serving copies to other sides. However, the said set aside petition was rejected on 20.01.2016 after hearing on the merit of the said petition. Finally, the matter was proceeded ex-part against O.P.No.3&4 during final hearing of the consumer dispute.
4. Upon notice the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 entered its appearance through learned counsel Shri Srinivas Panigrahi and filed his written version resisting the claim of the complainant. It is stated that there was an agreement between the complainant and the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 on 16th June 2011 vide Agreement No.WCN/CP/SAR/RGDA wherein the complainant was endowed with the right of advertising in the area of 1500 sqft at the outside area of the Railway station at Rayagada for a period of 3 years from 5.4.2010 to 4.4.2013 on deposit of an amount of Rs.41,667/- with the O.P.No.1. At his own cost the complainant installed hoardings in dimension 20X15 and 20X10 one hoarding and 20X20 and 40X15, six hoardings. On 27.10.2010 the O.P.No.3 & 4 illegally demolished the hoardings of the complainant existed in the area belonging to the Railway at the Rayagada Railway station without the knowledge of the complainant and the O.P. Nos. 1& 2. For that the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation for demolition of hoarding as the complainant was already been allotted equivalent area for the demolished area. The O.P. No.1 in his letter No.WCN/CP/SAR/RGDA/Outside/10 dated 7.1.2011 has informed the O.P.No.3 for payment of compensation to the complainant as the same were demolished illegally and unauthorizedly by the O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.1 and 2 have not caused any harassment or mental agony to the complainant. The Clause 6, 12 and 13 of the agreement which is elaborately described in Clause 13 that “The Railway Administration reserves the right to remove any advertisement for the purpose of painting or repair or for the repair of space given for advertisement or to direct the licensee to shift the advertisement to some other place if necessary and that the same would be done by licensee without any objection or demand for compensation”. Taking into consideration of all the factual aspects and aspects of law if any award is made, the O.P. No. 3 and 4 are liable to pay the same as they have caused illegal loss to the complainant and the proceeding against the O.P.No.1 and 2 may be dropped with cost as not maintainable in the interest of justice.
5. On the date of final hearing of the case, we heard arguments from the learned counsel for the complainant and as well as for the O.P.No.1 &2. We have also perused the pleadings of parties and also gone through the vital documents like written arguments filed by parties, agreement papers and all the Annexures 1 to 9 filed by the complainant placed on the case record. During the course of hearing of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that it is a fact that the O.P.No.1 &2 has admitted to have allowed the complainant through an agreement for advertisement at the outside of Railway Station, Rayagada for a total period of 3 years starting from 05.04.2010 to 0.4.04.2013. The complainant was given 1500 Sqft space for erecting hoardings and for this the complainant has deposited Rs.41,667/- with the O.P. No.1 &2 and spent 65,000/- towards making of the hoarding. During the validity period of the said agreement, the O.P.No.3 &4 on 27.10.2010 demolished the hoarding without notice which is illegal. The matter was also intimated to the O.P. No.3 through O.P.No.1 for making good of the loss incurred by the complainant. So, the O.P. No3 &4 is liable to pay compensation as prayed in the complainant to the complainant through O.P.No.1&2 in the interest of justice.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 &2 contended that there was an agreement between the complainant and O.P.No.1&2 on 16th June 2011 vide agreement No.WCN/CP/SAR/RGDA wherein the complainant was endowed with the right of advertising in the area of 1500 Sqft at the outside area of Railway Station for a period of 3 years from 05.04.2010 to 0.4.04.2013 on payment of Rs.41,667/- with the O.P.No.1. It is also argued that on 27.10.2010, the O.P.No.3 & 4 illegally demolished the hoarding of the complainant from the said area without the knowledge of O.P.No.1&2 so far that O.P.No.1 & 2 not liable to pay any compensation for demolition of the hoarding and complainant has already been allotted equivalent area. It is also argued that the O.P.No.1 in his letter No. No.WCN/ CP/SAR/RGDA dated 07.01.2011 have informed the matter to the O.P.No.3 for payment of compensation to the complainant as the same were demolished illegally and unauthorizedly by O.P.No.3. The O.P. No.1 & 2 not caused any harassment or mentally agony to the complainant. So taking into consideration of all the factual aspects and aspects of law, if any award is made, the O.P.No.3 and 4 are liable to pay the same as they have caused illegal loss to the complainant and the proceeding against O.P.No.1&2 may be dropped with cost as not maintainable in the interest of justice.
6. We perused the above oral pleadings of learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the O.P.No.1 & 2 and scanned all the documents placed on the case record. On perusal of the agreement papers and other documents placed on the case record, it is found that the agreement was signed between the complainant and O.P.No.1&2 at Visakhapatnam on 16.06.2010 which is outside jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum. It is also a fact that the cause of action arose at Rayagada on 27.10.2010 when the O.P.No.3&4 illegally demolished the hoarding of the complainant. After perusal of the pleadings and going through the documents, in our view, when the agreement is signed at Visakhapatnam and when the cause of action arose at Rayagada, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Since the cause of action arose at Rayagada and business contract was signed at Visakhapatnam, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in view of the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ritu Bhuwanja Vs. The Secretary, M/s Vatsa Corporation Ltd & Anr reported in 2010 (1) CPR P-75 where it was held that “as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a complaint could be instituted within the local limits of a District Forum where the O.Ps resides or carries on business or where the cause of action wholly or in partly arises”.
7. In the light of the above discussion, decision and under the present facts and circumstance of the case, in our considered view, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum for lack of territorial jurisdiction hence dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the case in any court of competent jurisdiction for realization of loss from the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly but there is no order as to cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 23rd February 2016 under signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copies of the order to parties free of cost.
