BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 21st March 2012
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.298/2010
(Admitted on 30.10.2010)
Mr.Harish Kumar,
Aged about 55 years,
So P.Babu Rao,
Partner Ms. Babu Rao & Co.
Chamber Road, Bunder,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: In person)
VERSUS
Sri Gajendra,
Secretary O.o APMC,
Baikampady ,
Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Smt. Manjula N.A.)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant stated, he is a businessman at Mangalore and is the license holder in Agriculture Marketing Produce Committee office at Baikampady, Mangalore. The Opposite Party is the secretary performing his duties in Agriculatural Produce Market Committee (herein after referred to as ‘A.P.M.C.’), Mangalore.
It is stated that, the Complainant applied for the renewl of the license on 25.2.2009 and paid license fee of Rs.4,510/- on 31.8.2009. The Complainant is eagerly waiting for the license through the office of the Opposite Party to display the business, but the Opposite Party accepted the prescribed forms and necessary papers in connection with the grant of license from the Complainant but failed to supply the license through their office subordinate. The Complainant stated that, he was running to the door steps of the Opposite Party every now and then for want of original license and the Opposite Party used to defer the service of license every now and then with one or the other reason. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a notice dated 4.10.2010 but the Opposite Party inspite of receiving the notice not issued the original license. Feeling aggrieved by the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to consider the representation dated 4.10.2010 of the Complainant and pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version stated that, the Complainant is not a consumer and does not come under the definition of the consumer and prayed for dismissal of the complaint on this count.
Further it is stated that, the Complainant doing the business of Merchants and Commission Agents of Supari and other agricultural produce and other allied commodities under the name and style of “M/s. P.Babu Rao & Co.”. It is stated that, the firm is running their business at Bunder and had a license for the period 2008-09. On 25.2.2009, he had applied for renewal of license, but as per order passed in Writ Petition No.14813/2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the license issued for the year 2008-09 was withheld and directed him to return the permit if any and stop the work at Bunder area. So the amount paid by him for renewal also returned to the Complainant. It is stated that, for the purpose of renewal of license, the firm had handed over the original license to the Opposite Party, since the license could not be renewed the said original license was returned back to the Complainant’s firm on 16.3.2009. It is further stated that, the Complainant preferred writ petition, as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Opposite Party, on 20.8.2009 passed the resolution and renewed the license from 2009-10 to 2017-18 which was informed as per letter dated 28.9.2010. The Complainant had applied for the renewal of license and original license with the Complainant, without returning the original license, the Opposite Party is not in a position to renew the same and contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and denied the entire allegation alleged in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Sri. Harish Kumar (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C4 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. One Mr.M.C.Ramachandra (RW1), Secretary, A.P.M.C. and one Sri.Gajendra, Secretary A.P.M.C. (RW2) –of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex R1 to R10 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure in detail. Both the parties produced notes of arguments.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i):Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. Points No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that, the complainant is the license holder in Agricultural Marketing Produce at Mangalore. The above said authority issued the license to the complainant to do business of merchants and commission agents for the purchase of agricultural produce. It is also admitted that, the Opposite Party is that secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baikampady, Mangalore and the firm managed by the complainant i.e. M/s. P.Babu Rao and Co. is running through business at a place called Bunder in D.K. District and had a license for the period 2008-09. And on 25.2.2009, he had applied for renewal of license before the Opposite Party.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant came up with this complaint contended that he had applied for a renewal of the license before the Opposite Party and paid renewal fee but the Opposite Parties inspite of the High Court directions not issued the license, hence came up with this complaint.
The Opposite Party on the other hand contended that, the complainant had applied for renewal of the license and the original license with the complainant, without returning the original license the opposite party is not in position to renew the same and contended that there is no deficiency.
In order to substantiate the averments raised in the complaint, the Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C4. And Opposite Party also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R10.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, there is no dispute of the fact that the complainant applied for the renewal of the license and the Opposite Party received the fee paid by the complainant. But the contention raised by the Opposite Party is that, the complainant not produced original license before the Opposite Party to renew the license, hence they are not in a position to renew the same. The above contention raised by the Opposite Party cannot be considered in this case because on perusal of the admitted as well as documentary evidence available on record, it is seen that, the complainant firm M/s P.Babu Rao and Co. is running their business at place called Bunder in Mangalore, D.K. District and license for the period 2008-09 to do business of merchants and commission agents for purchase of agricultural produce. On 25.2.2009 he had applied for renewal of the license before the Opposite Party also admitted in this case. But the Opposite Party preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.14813/2008, as per the order passed in the above said writ petition, the license issued for the year 2008-09 was withheld by the Opposite Party and directed the complainant to return the permit and stop the work at Bunder area. Subsequently, the complainant appeared in the above writ petition and contested the case, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka observed that there is no difficulty or illegality for the traders to trade in the market sub-yard at Bunder and directed the opposite party to issue a license for the traders who trade in Bunder area. The complainant is also one of the trader among other traders. When that being so, the Opposite Party shall renew the license irrespective of demanding the original license. Since there is a observation by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka demanding of original license from the traders does not arise. But in the instant case, the Opposite Party by giving a reason that the complainant is not handed over the original license, the license of the Opposite Party is not renewed/issued which is not justifiable in the case on hand. Once the matter has been seized by the Court of Law and thereafter the order has been delivered, the observation made by the Court of Law is the final and last word applicable to the parties and both the parties must obey the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. But in the instant case, though there is an observation made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the Opposite Party by giving a reason that the complainant not submitted the original license and his license was not issued which amounts to deficiency in service. Because the Opposite Party accepted the fee paid by the complainant for the renewal of the license in this case and also there is a specific observation by the Hon’ble High Court Karnataka to renew the license. When that being so, the Opposite Party should have issued a renewed license to the complainant immediately. Since there is an observation by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka demanding of original license does not arise and hence the opposite party is liable to renew the license immediately. But in the instant case, we also observed that, the Opposite Party instead of issuing a renewed license forced the complainant to knock the door of this FORA and hence the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the deficiency committed by them. However, the Opposite Party produced the fresh license before this FORA during the pendency of this complaint at the later stage.
However, in view of the fore going reasons, we hold that, the Opposite Party inspite of the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court to renew the license failed to renew the license and to issue the same till this date amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant. Because the opposite party is a administrative authority must obey the order of the Hon’ble High Court, should not harass the license holders in this way by demanding original license inspite of receiving renewal fees.
Under that circumstance, the Opposite Party must pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. The A.P.M.C. is at liberty to recover the above compensation amount from the erred official who was incharge of the same at the time of renewal of the license. Payment/compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. A.P.M.C. represented by its Secretary/Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to issue a renewed fresh license to the complainant and also pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and further Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment/compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 10 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of March 2012.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri. Harish Kumar- complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 3.18.2009: Original Receipt No.28629 issued by the
Opposite Party.
Ex C2 – 4.10.2010: Original Representation.
Ex C3 – 5.10.2010: Original Postal receipt bearing No.RLAD
A-5239.
Ex C4 – Original Acknowledgement card.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Mr.M.C.Ramachandra, Secretary, A.P.M.C of the
Opposite Party.
RW2 – Sri.Gajendra, Secretary A.P.M.C. of the Opposite Party
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 –19.8.2010: Application filed by the complainant under
RTI Act.
Ex R2 – 31.8.2010: Reply to letter dated 19.8.2010.
Ex R3 - : Returned envelop.
Ex R4 – 26.10.2010: Complaint filed before Lokayukta by the
complainant.
Ex R5 – 11.10.2010: Reply to the letter dated 4.10.2010.
Ex R6 – 13.3.2009: Letter issued to the complainant by the
opposite party.
Ex R7 -13..3.2009: Letter issued to the complainant by the
A.P.M.C.
Ex R8 – 26.8.2009: Proceeding of general meeting held by
A.P.M.C.
Ex R9 – 28.9.2010: Letter issued by the A.P.M.C.
Ex. R10 – 15.1.2009: Office copy of the License Certificate.
Dated:21.3.2012 PRESIDENT
