DATE OF FILING: 5.9.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.01.2017.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s father late L.Gopal Swamy had acquired a license to hold a shop room in the outpost road i.e. in the heart of the market/commercial area of Hinjilicut, owned by O.P.No.1, by depositing an amount of Rs.19,000/- as security deposit since 28.2.1994 and a lease agreement was executed on the date to that effect and though the agreement was stipulated for a period of 12 months, but on the consent of both the parties, it continued. The lease license continued as thus, being Sri Gopal Swamy has turned old, and the present complainant had been in continuous occupation of the said lease hold shop on behalf of his father and as heir in interest, and also on intended letter by the O.P.No.1 vide his letter No. 400 dated 9.4.2012 a fresh agreement was executed between the O.P.No.1 and the complainant on dated 2.8.2012 for 12 months for the same shop room, for running a bangle shop. The O.P.No.1 being the licensor for the lease hold of the shop room has assured that he is the absolute owner of the shop room and in the agreement it was agreed that for determination of the agreement 30 days prior notice should be given to the party by the party intending for such determination. The complainant never defaulted in payment of any monthly rent during his tenure of such lease hold. But for construction of National High Way the site was demarcated as encroached by both O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 and without any prior notice by the O.P.No.1 or any arrangement for the rehabilitation for the complainants settlement for his shop room in any other place, O.P.No.1 and 2 in joint operation demolished the above shop room on 17.12.2012. Such arbitrary action of the O.Ps the complainant has lost his livelihood and thrown away on road to beg for bread for his family which includes a handicapped child of 5 years. The complainant being left so penniless, deprived of his livelihood, in a beggars state to earn breads for his family, the O.P. in his letter No. 854 dated 17.4.2013 demanded an amount of Rs.98,500/- towards construction cost of shop room to rehabilitate him in lieu of the demolished shop. The leasing of shop room is commercial activity of the O.P.No.1 and availing such service of the O.P.No.1 on payment of rent and security deposit, the complainant is consumer under the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 being the Chairman of the NAC is equally liable for the arbitrary and unfair action of the O.P.No.1. Hence this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter within the ambit of the C.P.Act, 1986. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 & 2 to allot one built in shop room in the market complex in any market/commercial area of O.P.No.1, immediately rehabilitate the complainant in any vacant shop room available in the market place under the Hinjilicut NAC, compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant to have inflicted physical/mental and financial injury to the complainant.
In support of his case the complainant has filed the following which are attached in the case record.
1. Photocopy of agreement between L.Gopalswamy licensee and licenser Executive Officer, Notified Area council, Hinjilicut. Ganjam dated 28th February 1994.
2. Photocopy of Model agreement form 15AA 974345 for grant of license for use and occupation of shop rooms of Notified Area Council, Hinjilicut between L.Srinibas Rao (Licensee) and (Executive Officer, Licenser, NAC, Hinjilicut).
3. Photocopy of letter No. 400 dated 9.4.2008 of Executive Officer, NAC, Hinjilicut addressed to L.Srinivas Rao.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version. Hence they are declared set exparte on dated 21.4.2014.
4. On the date of exparte hearing we heard argument from the advocate for complainant. We have gone through the complaint petition and documents available in the case record. On perusal of the documents, we found that a lease agreement was executed between L.Gopalswamy (Licensee) and Executive Officer, N.A.C. Hinjilicut (Licenser) to hold a shop room for a period of 12 months. Since Sri Gopalswamy has turned old, a fresh agreement was executed between the complainant as legal heir in the interest with the O.P. No.1 on dated 28.06.2012 for 12 months. As per the version of the complainant for construction of National Highway, the site was demarcated as encroached by both the O. Ps and the shop was situated in that site demolished without any prior notice and without any arrangement for rehabilitation for the settlement in his shop room in any other place. On the above facts and circumstance the Forum views that since the site was selected for construction of National Highway, the O.P. had taken the above steps which was beyond their control. In the terms and conditions it is clearly mentioned in the agreement that the licenser have only legal title and ownership but the licensee have no right and titled under this deed. Further, the complainant submitted that the O.Ps without any arrangement for rehabilitation in any other place thrown away him on the road is not believable because the O.P.No.1 vide their letter No.654/13 dated 17.4.2013 and letter No.1260/13 dated 22.7.2013 had invited the complainant to deposit Rs.98,500/- in two installments besides Rs.19,000/- previously deposited as security deposit. But the complainant has not cooperated the O.P. and remained silent and knocked the door of the court. It is also a fact on record that as per the agreement deed the agreement was executed between the complainant and O.Ps on 28.06.2012 and it was valid for the period with effect from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2012. In the present case the O.Ps demolished the shop for extension of National Highway on 17.12.2012. Moreover, when a public authority for the greater interest of public removes the encroachment from both side of National Highway for extension of the public road, it can not be stated as arbitrary action since it neither intentional nor specifically against this present complaint in this instant case. Action of public authority while performing their statutory duty can not be called as arbitrary action and it is also not amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the Forum comes to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in this case. Hence the case of the complainant deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed without any costs.
5. In the result, we dismissed the case of the complainant due to devoid of merits. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
6. The order is pronounced on this day of 18th January 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
