D.F. Case No.100/2012
Date of filing:18.06.2012 Date of disposal:29.07.2013
Complainant: Samir Pal, Proprietor-Modern Art, 86, B.C.Road, Burdwan-713101.
VERSUS
Opposite Party: 1. Sr. Post Master, Burdwan HPO, Burdwan-713101.
2. Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices, Burdwan Division, Burdwan-713101.
3.Director of Posts, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700 012.
4. Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700 012.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyaya
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Hon’ble Member : Sri Durga Sankar Das
Appeared for the Complainant: Authorised Agent, R.S.Ganguly.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate Murari Mohan Kumar.
JUDGEMENT
The case of the complainant is as under.
Complainant, Sri Samir Pal is a proprietor of Modern Art and he is engaged in business in hoarding. He generally occupies suitable places on rental basis for erecting structure for displaying business advertisement. In this way the complainant got permission from HPO (O.P. No.1) and Superintendent of Post Office i.e. O.P. No.2 on 2.3.2009. The complainant was required to deposit Rs.65,000/- in advance to O.P. which was complied by the complainant vide cheque No.300745 dated 6.3.2009 of Punjab National Bank, Burdwan. For this purpose i.e. for the displaying of the hoarding at the selected place a separate electric service connection with a separate electric meter was required and for this purpose the complainant took NOC from HPO, Burdwan on 8.4.2009 and got new service connection from electric supplier by depositing Rs.4,525/-. The complainant had also deposited a cheque for Rs.65,000/- being cheque No.019216 dated 20.1.2011 being the advance rent for the period from period from 5.4.2011 to 4.3.2012 for renewal of his tender. After receiving the renewal application O.P. asked the complainant to submit a fresh quotation on 23.6.2011 which was complied and intimated to the O.P. that complainant is agreeable to offer the rent as previous rate. As the amount was already deposited and renewal terms already started from April, 201, O.P. No.1 in his letter dated 30.8.2011 intimated the complainant that his offer was not accepted to them since department has got higher rate. The complainant was also requested to vacate the place within seven days. However, due to interference of Burdwan District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre the Sr. Post Master advised the complainant on 17.1.2012 to meet in his office on 20.1.2012 when the O.P. asked him to give a fresh cheque as the validity of the said cheque has already expired. Although the said cheque was received on 20.1.2011 and was lying with the O.P. which was definitely due to some interior motive or some personal or otherwise post office did not encashed the same. For keeping a good relation with the Posts office the complainant had agreed to issue a fresh cheque and in his letter dated 23.1.2012 the complainant requested the O.P. No.2 to issue him instruction for issuing a fresh cheque.
The O.P. No.1 in its letter dated 27.3.2012 signed on 28.3.2012 requested the complainant to issue a fresh cheque being the advertisement cost for the period April, 2011 to March, 2012. Although it is fact that the complainant had deposited the above cost as early as January, 2011 and post office authority had created the dispute by not depositing the same for encashment and after one year they felt it was necessary to get a fresh cheque for the purpose. The complainant complied with their request and issued a fresh cheque by revalidating the date on 28.3.2012 and delivered to O.P. No.1 with a forwarding letter dated 28.3.2012 under receipt of one Deb Kr.Chattopadhyay. That after receiving the cheque O.P. No.2 in his letter dated 2.4.2012 conveyed thanks to the complainant for his tendering the alleged cheque of Rs.65,000/- towards the charges applicable under media post for the year 2011-12 and intimated the complainant that Burdwan H.O. has been identified as Project Arrow H.O. and no boards other than those erected and displayed by the department is allowed and advised the complainant to remove the hoarding from the place.
The O.P. No.1 conveyed thanks in his letter dated 3.4.2012 for making payment of Rs.65,000/- ad advertisement cost till March, 2012 and on the contrary regretted and advised him to vacate the place of hoarding within three days and by this O.P. No.1 had played a foul play with the complainant and committed a deceptive practice by taking the opportunity of the simplicity of the complainant. O.P.s have somehow managed to get their problem solve for unnecessary keeping the alleged cheque for a long time of one year in their custody which have created a great problem and dispute to them and O.P.s deliberately advised to vacate the place on two different cause, one is the department had got higher rate and the other is the Burdwan Head Office has been identified as project arrow H.O. which is a confusing one. The interference of the BDCP and WC was also not effective. In fact this displaying advertisement was done by the complainant with a huge labour cost of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for electrical connection as per NOC of O.P. and without discontinuing the contract with the present vender the department has tried to engage other party who had offered higher rate under details of vender was not disclosed to the complainant which amounts to unfair activity on the part of the O.P.. Considering above fact and circumstances, the complainant is not in a position to vacate the place unless adequate compensation is given to him or the complainant is allowed to continue the term at least one year due to aforesaid act of deficiency in service and unethical and deceptive trade practice constituted by O.P. The complainants suffers huge financial loss and claims relief as under.
- Towards cost of labour including erecting materials for construction of structure Rs.45,000/-
- Towards expenditure incurred for new service line Rs.25,000/-.
- Towards loss for idleness of the hoarding for the period from January, 2012 to till May, 2012 @ rs.15,000/- per month i.e. Rs.75,000/-.
- Towards cost of harassment Rs.10,000/- and
- Towards litigation cost for the instant case Rs.3000/-
Total claim Rs.1,58,000/- plus interest @ 12% on the total claim money till date of payment.
The complainant has submitted all the correspondence made with the O.P. and evidence on affidavit.
The O.P. in his written version has denied the charges as leveled against him. The O.P. further submits that they had a space in the Post Office building complex of Burdwan Head Post Office and O.P. accords permission for each financial year at an annual consideration by inviting offer for 2010-2011 i.e. April, 2010 to March, 2011 by O.P.s and the complainant Samir Pal, owner of M/s. Modern Art being found highest bidder was accepted and was allowed to install hoarding by display advertisement by letter No. G-Mail/BD/Hoarding dated 2.3.2009 issued to the complainant. As per contract the issue/tender was valid for one year i.e. contract to expire on 31.3.2010 and as per prayer of complainant a NOC was issued by O.P. for electric connection to the installation of the complainant which were all properties of the complainant and liable to be removed on the expiry of contract period. For renewal of contract O.P.I. awaited for fresh advertisement from higher authority for which permission was sought for. Although in the meantime the complainant fraudulently and in utter violation of terms of contract did not remove his installation illegally and unauthorizely continued to display advertisement and hoarding without paying any money to the O.P. for about nine months in the year 2010. On 20.1.2011 the complainant sent a cheque to the O.P. for Rs.65,000/- for renewal of the period of 2010-2011 for which O.P. never asked the complainant although new rates were offered by different organization at much higher rate but department decided to use it in their own purpose and the complainant deposit a fresh cheque on 28.3.2012 which was adjusted for this spend up period upto 31.3.2012 of his unauthorized use. The complainant was asked to remove his installation which he is bound to do but the complainant failed.
Points for consideration in this case are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
From the above statements of both parties and record produced by both parties it is observed that as per prayer of the complainant and as per advertisement of O.P. complainant Samir Pal got the hoarding place for business purpose on rental basis from O.P. for one year and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.65,000/- to the O.P. No.1 on 6.3.2009 at Punjab National Bank, Burdwan and as per NOC of O.P. the complainant got separate electric connection form electric department by depositing Rs.4,525/- for new service connection. In fact this contract between the O.P. and complainant was for one year and as per agreement it was automatically to lapse after end of contract period. The complainant’s fresh tender was not considered. Although the complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.65,000/- on 20.1.2011 for the next term period and continued to avail the said hoarding facility without approval of the competent authority. However, O.P. did not encash the cheque due to the reason best known to them although in advertently the complainant was using the said place for hoarding purpose without any fresh renewal or permission. However, O.P. No.1 on 27.3.2012 requested complainant to issue a fresh cheque being the advertisement cost for the period April, 2011 to March, 2012. In this respect the complainant already deposited of Rs.65,000/- earlier which was not encashed by the O.P. After receiving the said cheque on 28.3.2012 the O.P. intimated the complainant on 2.4.2012 that Burdwan H.O. has been identified as project arrow H.O. and no boards other than those erected and displayed by the department has allowed and advised the complainant to remove the hoarding from the place. O.P. No.1 also advice to vacate their place within three days. In fact the offer letter of O.P.s was for one year. As evinced from the record letter reference No. G-Mail/BD/Hoarding dated 2.3.2009 the O.P. received another cheque of Rs.65,000/- on 20.1.2011 which was not encashed. Though there was no add on the part of O.P. and this acceptance of cheque on the part of O.P. was not proper. The complainant continued to avail the hoarding without permission which was also not proper. Thus both side was in wrong availing the said facility by the complainant as well as receiving the cheque by the O.P. Though the said cheque was not encashed by the O.P. and O.P. in a fraudulent manner advised the complainant to issue a fresh cheque which was complied by complainant on 28.3.2012. After receiving the cheque the O.P. did not issue any permission letter to the complainant even post facto for the said contract period in a fraudulent manner and letter misleading the complainant, the O.P. received the fresh cheque which is an unfair trade practice and O.P. finally intimated the complainant that the Burdwan H.P.O. had been identified as HORO which is surely as descriptive. The offer letter does not speak the period of offer i.e. the contract period which is a mistake on the part of O.P. Even the period mentioned in written version is not specific and contradictory. Moreover in offer letter there is no period of contract mentioned. It is also a fact that periods mentioned in the complaint letter or written version is not tallying. Periods covering the dispute is 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 but complainant after receiving offer letter (which is without any specific period) deposited another cheque of Rs.65,000/- for which no permission was issued by O.P. which is deficiency in service though the said period was availed by the complainant for advertisement purpose. O.P. is at liberty either to give the space on rent or not but if he received the amount then he is duly bound to give offer letter even post facto. Hence it is,
ORDERED
that the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act is partly allowed on contest against the O.P.s. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental pain, agony, harassment for not issuing offer letter and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- within 45 days from this date of order, in default the law will take its own course.
(Udayan Mukhopadhyaya)
Dictated and corrected by me. President,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
(Sri Durga Sankar Das)
Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
(Mrs. Silpi Majumder) (Sri Durga Sankar Das)
Member, Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
