Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/28/2018

B.Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.N.Rajagopalan Southern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :18.01.2018

Date of disposal            :29.09.2022

                                                           

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

 PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                     TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                              : MEMBER-I

                     THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.28/2018

 

DATED THURSDAY THE 29^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

B.Ramesh,

Advocate,

222, Additional Law Chamber,

Highcourt Campus,

Chennai-600 104.                                      

                                                                                                …..Complainant

                                       

 ..Vs..

 

1). T.N. Rajagopalan,

Southern Railway Contractor,

55, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Colony,

Meenambedu, Ambattur,

Chennai-600 053.

 

2). Divisional Railway Manager,

Commercial Branch,

Park Town,

Chennai-600 003.                                                          …..Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                          : Party-In-Person

 

Counsel for 1^st  opposite party                    : M/s. Velayuthum pichaiya and 3 other

Counsel for 2^nd  opposite party                   : M/s. K.Muthamil Raja

 

 

ORDER

 

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E, MEMBER-I:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of     Rs.25,000/ as compensation towards deficiency of service caused by the Opposite parties and Rs.25,000/ for the mental agony caused due to the deficiency of service.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

 

          The complainant availed the 2 wheeler parking available at southside entrance of velachery railway station (MRTS) for parking his 2 wheeler with Reg. No-TN 22 DH 3574 via receipt no. 24214 on 20/9/2017.The receipt contained the words stating that the vehicles were parked at the risk of the owner and the contractor is not liable for any loss or damage to the vehicle parked and further there was no over roof shed to protect the vehicles from damages that could be caused due to weather. The complainant filed his grievance via Southern Railways online portal and sent complaint by way of legal notice on 21.09.2017 and 13.11.2017 and the complainant also stated that the parking area was amidst the entrance of the railway station entrance there is difficulty in entering  and  in taking the parked vehicle from the parking place due to over crowding of the vehicles in the parking place. And there is no sufficient space in the parking as the 2 wheelers are over crowded, and the commuters face difficulty in parking and taking out of parking lot. Added the complainant's vehicle suffered damage due to non availability of over roof shelter to accommodate the vehicles from weather changes. All above averments were putforth in the aforesaid online complaint registered with the 2nd Opposite Party. As a result of the online grievance registered the 2nd Opposite party directed the 1^st Opposite party to redress the allegations  given by the complainant. The 2^nd Opposite party has given instruction to the  1st Opposite party to act as per the terms and conditions of the contract and accordingly the 1^st opposite party has carried out the directions and instructions and reported the same to the 2^nd opposite party. The complaint suffered hardship and mental agony due to the deficiency of service caused by opposite party and prayed for compensation for the same.

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF.

          The opposite party denied each and every averment made by the complainant as false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  It is true that the complainant parked his vehicle with this opposite party’s yard on 20.09.2017 for a merge charge Rs.10/- and slip has given.  The slip has printed urgently and the owner’s risk condition later taken out. The complainant’s vehicle was parked only for five hours in parking place and there is no hot sun or rain on the day of 20.09.2017. The 1^st opposite party has asked the customers to park their vehicle in order or in taking out in proper manner in which it will not give damage or hindrance to any one vehicles.  But the customers parked their vehicle not in proper manner for their urgent way to go out.  This complainant parked his  vehicle for only five hours on 20.09.2017 and no damage was caused to his vehicle and the complaint does not state the details of damages to his vehicle. The complaint is unnecessary since the complainant’s vehicle has no damage and no problem in taking out the vehicle from the parking yard of the 1^st opposite party. Hence prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

 

 

3. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY 2^nd   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF.

          The 2^nd opposite party denies each and every averment made by the complainant as false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party has been awarded the license for operating the two wheeler parking stand in the medavakkam side of Velachery MRTS Railway station for a fixed period of two years from 09.03.2017 to 08.03.2019 by the railway administration.  The 2^nd opposite party is the head of the commercial department in the chennai division.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that pursuant to the email complaint dated 04.0.2017, the rail way administration verified the allegations and instructed the contractor to provide shelter as required under Clause 2 of the agreement dated 25.11.2017. The 2^nd opposite party stated that regarding condition printed in the parking token the Railway Administration directed the contractor not to print such conditions  on the parking tokens as the said conditions were against Clause 9(iii) of the agreement.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that based on the action as taken above by the Railway Administration. The 2^nd opposite party stated that in compliance with the directions issued by the Railway Administration the parking contractor immediately stopped issuing parking tokens containing such conditions.  The contractor had also provided shelter in the parking stand and informed the same to the railway administration.

4. Points of Consideration    1.Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of Opposite parties?

2.Whether the complainant entitled for any compensation as alleged in the complaint? If so, to what extent?

Proof Affidavit, Written Arguments along with documents ExA1 to ExA7 submitted by Complainant. Written version, Written Arguments filed and no documents filed by 1st Opposite party. Written Version, Written Arguments along with Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 filed by 2nd Opposite party.

5. Point No. 1

                   The complainant availed the 2 wheeler parking available at southside entrance of velachery railway station (MRTS) for parking his 2 wheeler with Reg. No-TN 22 DH 3574 via receipt no. 24214 on 20/9/2017.The receipt contained the words stating that the vehicles were parked at the risk of the owner and the contractor is not liable for any loss or damage to the vehicle parked and further there was no over roof shed to protect the vehicles from damages that could be caused due to weather. The complainant filed his grievance via Southern Railways online portal and sent complaint by way of legal notice on 21.09.2017 and 13.11.2017 and the complainant also stated that the parking area was amidst the entrance of the railway station entrance there is difficulty in entering  and  in taking the parked vehicle from the parking place due to over crowding of the vehicles in the parking place. And there is no sufficient space in the parking as the 2 wheelers are over crowded, and the commuters face difficulty in parking and taking out of parking lot. Added the complainant's vehicle suffered damage due to non availability of over roof shelter to accommodate the vehicles from weather changes.

 6.  All above averments were put forth in the aforesaid online complaint registered with the 2nd Opposite Party. As a result of the online grievance registered the 2nd Opposite party directed the 1^st Opposite party to redress the allegations  given by the complainant. The 2^nd Opposite party has given instruction to the  1st Opposite party to act as per the terms and conditions of the contract and accordingly the 1^st opposite party has carried out the directions and instructions and reported the same to the 2^nd opposite party. The complaint suffered hardship and mental agony due to the deficiency of service caused by opposite party and prayed for compensation for the same.

          7.  The complainant availed the parking lot at the South entrance of Velachery Railway Station (MRTS) maintained by 1st Opposite party who is an authorised parking lot contractor of the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle(reg.no-TN 22 3574) owned by the complainant  was parked between 9.10am to 2.00pm at the 2nd Opposite party's premises paying a sum of Rs. 10/ vide token no. 24214 issued by the 1st opposite party. The token is marked as Ex.A1. The complainant filed an online complaint via The 2nd Opposite partys grievance portal and the status of same is filed as Ex.A7 .The complainant filed a legal notice on 1st and 2nd Opposite parties stating their deficiency of service which is marked as ExA2. The legal notice filed dated 3/11/2017 reminding the evaded notice filed on 21/09/2017 is marked as Ex.A4. The contract between 1st Opposite party and 2nd Opposite party for Construction and maintenance of parking lot at Velachery MRTS station is marked as Ex.A6. The summary of grievance action status is marked as ExA7. The grievance action status  filed on behalf of 2^nd opposite party is marked as Ex.B1 and the 1^st Opposite party's report on completion of the  grievance is marked as Ex.B2.

          8.  The complainant who availed the parking lot at Velachery Railway station (MRTS) South Entrance maintained by 1st opposite party to park his 2 wheeler (reg.no TN 22 3574) with a token no. 24214  marked as Ex.A1 remains undisputed by the opposite parties. The token no. 24214 contained the words stating that the “ CONTRACTOR NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OF VEHICLE (THEFT/FIRE) OR DAMAGE  AND UNLOCKED VEHICLE" which according to the complainant is illegal and against the terms of contract between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  In the written version of the 2^nd opposite party it is stated that the railway administration has directed the contractor not to print such condition on the parking token as the same was against the Clause .9 (iii) of the agreement dated 25.11.2017 as per which the licenses shall be responsible for safe custody of vehicle and loss and damaged to the vehicle and further stated that in pursuance to the e-mail of the complainant dated 04.10.2017 the railway administration verified the allegations and instructed the contractor to provide shelter as agreed by him in Clause 2 of the agreement dated 25.11.2017 and further it is found Ex.B1 that the 2^nd opposite party based on the complaint of the complainant has directed the contractor to remove the inappropriate word printed in the token and also directed to provide roof in the parking area and the said complaint was closed by the railway administration on 11.11.2017 directing he contractor to comply with the instruction as stated above  and it is further found from Ex.B2 the contractor the 1^st opposite party has written a letter to the 2^nd opposite party on 26.12.2017 stating that as per the directions shelter was provided in the parking place and enclosed the photos also along with that letter and further stated that the inappropriate words were removed from the parking token as per the directions given by the railway administration. The decision relied upon by the complainant in R.P.No.2231/2000 of NCDRC dated: 23.05.2001 is not applicable to the facts of the present case since that matter related to charging of extra parking fees than the fees fixed by the Railway administration. In the written argument filed by the complainant it has been admitted that the 1^st opposite party has fixed roof in the parking place but, stated that the roof was not laid to the entire parking place for which there is no documentary proof filed by the complainant. Hence, such contention is not maintainable.

          9.  Though the complainant has alleged that his two wheeler was damaged on 21.09.2017 at the parking place there is no documentary proof or photograph to prove such contention further the complainant knowing fully well that the parking place has no roof has parked his two wheeler and hence he is not entitled to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.  Further the alleged agreement between 1^st and 2^nd opposite party dated 25.11.2017 was not filed before this commission by both the parties at any event it is found from Ex.B2 that the 1^st opposite party has provided shelter and also removed the inappropriate words in the parking token and hence the grievance of the complainant were already rectified by the opposite parties in December 2017 itself even before filing of this complaint in January 2018 and hence it is found that there is  no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

10. Point No. 2

          Based on finding given in  Point.No.1 since the complainant's grievance have already been redressed by the opposite parties  which is proved by Ex.B2 there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and further there is no evidence to prove that the damages sustained to the complainants vehicle as stated earlier and hence complainant is not entitled for any compensations claimed in the complaint.

                 In result , the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29^thday of September 2022.

 

MEMBER – I         MEMBER – II                                       PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1		Parking Area Allotted ticket
Ex.A2	21.09.2017	Legal notice to opposite parties.
Ex.A3		Postal acknowledgement receipt.
Ex.A4	13.11.2017	Legal notice to opposite parties.
Ex.A5		Track consignment.
Ex.A6	27.01.2017	Parking agreement between the 1st and 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A7	04.12.2017	Order towards 1st opposite party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                               

Ex.B1	19.11.2018	Grievance action status.
Ex.B2	26.12.2017	The 1st opposite party letter to 2nd opposite party.

 

 

MEMBER  I         MEMBER – II                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.28/2018, Dated:29.09.2022 Order Pronounced, In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.     Member-I    Member-II    President