DATE OF DISPOSAL: 16.05.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission.

The complainant sought following reliefs against the opposite parties for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices –

1. Payment of loss of Rs.5,32,000/- for non-allotment of the vehicle for 38 days from 12.05.2019 to 18.06.2019;
2. Payment of Rs.6455/- deposited towards interest @ 18% p.m. at Annexure – 4.
3. Reimbursement of losses @ Rs.14000/- per day from 24.07.2019 to till date for non-allotment of the vehicle by the op no.2;
4. Payment of exemplary compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
5. Payment of Rs.7500/- towards cost of litigation i.e., Advocate Fees, IPO charges, type charges, affidavit, Xerox, etc.
6. And pass such other orders as the Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper.

2.         The complainant responded to the tender no. 17962/dated:24.12.2018 (11^th phase) of op no.1 for chartering of two numbers of buses in between Bhanjanagar to Malkangiri from 08.04.2019 to 07.04.2020 i.e., for one year with 66% of pay load for his livelihood. Accordingly, the opposite party no.1 selected him and issued a letter no. 4282/Dated;06.04.2019 in his favour. In accordance to item no.4 of the Agreement, complainant deposited security amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in two equal parts i.e., Rs.60,000/- on 23.03.2019 vide M.R.No.60/6050 and another amount of Rs.60,000/- on 05.04.2019 vide M.R. No.60/6051. Thereby the op no.1 issued ‘Allotment of Bhanjanagar-Malkangiri Bus services vide Letter No.4284/Dated.06.04.2019’ to the complainant and the complainant took possession of said vehicles. But due to repair of said two vehicles and other untoward obstruction the said two vehicles not plied  for which the complainant could not deposit the sale proceeds for the period of 25.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 amounting of Rs.35859/-. And the complainant filed an application on 11.09.2019 at op no.2 for deposit of the said amount. Thereby, as per instruction of the op no.2, the complainant deposited Rs.35859/- with interest @ 18% p.a i.e., Rs.6455/- on 12.09.2019 vide receipt no. 72/book no.6202. Inspite of the deposits, the op no.2 did not allow the complainant to operate the bus in accordance to the agreement dtd: 06.04.2015. Prior to this, the complainant filed an application on 24.07.2019 to the op no.1 to allow adjust the 38 days in which period the vehicles were not ply and increase of quantity of supply of fuel, but all in vein. For not allowing to operate the buses by extending the period, the complainant lost his livelihood @ Rs.14000/- per day for 38 days i.e., in toto Rs.5,32,000/- and charging of interest @ 18% for deposit the amount by the complainant are tantamount to deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. Being aggrieved with the actions of opposite parties, the complainant filed this complain in accordance to the consumer protection act, 1986.

3.         Admitted the complaint, the Commission issued notices to the opposite parties.

4.         The opposite parties acknowledged the notices and appeared in the case. And through their Panel Advocate, the opposite parties filed their written version. Admitting the Para 1 of the complaint, the opposite parties stated that a tender notice was published vide no.17962/Dated:24.12.2018 for chartering of Bhanjanagar to Malkangiri route bus. The complainant submitted tender application for the above purpose. The opposite parties further submitted in its written version that, the complainant has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- as security deposit at the Head Office, Bhubaneswar and took possession of vehicle on 09.04.2019. The opposite parties admitted the facts mentioned in Para 3 and 4 of the complaint. Answering to Para 5 of the complaint, the ops stated that, the buses of the complainant stopped for 38 days from 12.05.2019 to 17.06.2019. And further the buses stopped for Sahid Saptah from 28.07.2019 to 03.08.2019. And in both the case of not plying of buses, the opposite parties alleged that, the complainant had taken leadership of that unit which violates the Para – 1 of the principles of the agreement. After completion of Sahid Saptah on 03.08.2019, the complainant should start the charter service from 04.08.2019 but the opposite party stated that, the complainant failed to run the bus by taking false plea that, ‘he has mat run the vehicle as mentioned in Para – 6 to the complainant.’ Due to not deposit the ‘sale proceeding charter service amount of the dated 25.08.2019 to 27.08.2019, the A.S.M., Bhanjanagar lodge a FIR against the complainant at I.I.C., Bhanjanagar. In reference to Letter dated 12.09.2019 the complainant deposited the charter amount. The Opp. Parties further stated that, the complainant deserted the charter service since then. Regarding it, the A.S.M., Bhanjanagar submitted a detail report to the corporate office, BBSR vide office letter No.473/Dtd:31.10.2019. The opposite parties denied to Para – 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint. Hence the claim made in complaint at Para – 12 by the complainant is not coming under purview of this Hon’ble Court. The complainant is not the consumer, the complainant has violated the principle of agreement by not violated the principle of agreement by not running the charter service. After receive the report from the A.S.M, Bhanjanagar, the corporate office, BBSR taken steps against the complainant. So the demand of Rs.5,32,000/- is un-stainable and laughable. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the case.

5.         On the date of hearing, Ld. Counsels for both the parties submitted their arguments on the point of issues. The Commission heard and perused the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavits, written arguments and documents of both the parties minutely.

            On analysis of the evidence available in the case, it is apparent from the record that, the opposite parties did not stick up to the conditions of the Allotment vide No.4284/IMTR-15/19, Dated: 06.04.2019 and not considered the applications filed by the complainant in accordance to the said Allotment agreement and their own office orders. Hence it is manifest that, the opposite parties rendered deficient services and undertaken the unfair trade practices. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost. In the instant case, the opp. Party no.2 has taken all the decision and action against the complainant violating the Cl. 15 of the Allotment Order Dated: 06.04.2019.

In view of the principle of law laid in Polymat India P. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 286, the Commission allowed the complaint against the opposite parties partly on contest. The opposite parties who are jointly and severally liable to pay at par income of two number buses per day for 38 days as per clause 16 of the allotment letter dated: 06.04.2019 vide No.4284/IMTR-15/19 to the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- as well within 45 days. In the event of non-compliance of the above order by the opposite parties, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 16.05.2024