J U D G E M E N T.
The Complainant has applied for a Cabin for Veg. Tea Stall at Khariar Road Railway Station Platform No. 2 as per advertisement on 29.01.2009. The Divisional Manager Railway(Commercial) invite the complainant for interview on 14.05.2009 & 25.05.2009. The complainant has selected for allotment of Veg Tea Stall at Khariar Road Railway Station as per his petition which was for his self engagement and earning of livelihood. The Divisional Manager(Commercial) Sambalpur has allotted him by sending a confirmed letter No. C/SBP/Veg Tea Stall/Khar/PF/2/3/9 dated 04.9.2009 for running of Veg Tea Stall at Khariar Road Platform No.2. As per contract or Agreement the complainant has deposited Rs. 82,310/- (Rupees eighty two thousand three hundred and ten) only pay to the O.P. vide Money Receipt No. 14703382 dated 10.12.2009 in the manner of security deposit for Veg Tea Stall at Khariar Road Station Platform No.2 and earnest money Rs. 13,000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand) only in the shape of Demand Draft vide No. 089623 dated 16.01.2009 drawn on Central Bank of India Khariar Road.
The O.P. has given direction specifically mention for construction of Modular Veg Tea Stall at Khariar Road Plat Form No. 2 and provide a Sketch map regarding the measurement and site of stall indicating to deliver within fifteen days.
The complainant in this case has approached the O.P.to deliver the Stall but O.P. has not responded so the O.P. has intentionally harassed the petitioner without responding the complaint of the complainant on dated 09.09.2010 again letter of request given on 24.01.2011, 02.6.2014, 20.6.2013 but the O.P. has not responded.
As per the complaint of the petitioner the cause of action arose on dated 25.8.2014 when the O.P. has when the O.P. has terminated the proposal of the complainant for Veg Tea Stall of Khariar Road Railway Station at Platform No. 2.
The petitioner has lost Rs. 18,75,389/- only and suffering financial hardship, mental agony jointly severally responsible for the deficiency in service.
The O.P. has filed their version by stating the purpose of the Stall in purely commercial for running of Veg-Tea Stall at Khariar Road Railway Plat Form No. 2, the complainant is not a consumer rather a contractor for running business within the premises of Railway Station for incurring profit. The running of Tea Stall for Railway Passengers as well as render good service. The O.P. has reminded again and again for the payment of licensing fee of for one year and set up a modular stall at the site already selected as vide letter dated 09.6.2014.
The O.P. No.4 has given a diary entry No. 28/02 dated 21.9.2011 to O.P. No.3 in (Annexure-4). The complainant has only set up a box (stall) at the site provided neither he open the stall nor pay the balance licensee fee. The O.P. has given sufficient opportunity and advise to the complainant for running of the Tea Stall hence he provide termination letter to the complainant by registered post on dated 20.05.2014 but the complainant remain silent as such No Justification of deficiency in service by O.P. des not arise.
The O.P. has pleaded in this case that the matter is partly for commercial purpose relating to commercial matter by Divisional Manager (Commercial). So breach of contract does not includes consumer disputes it is partly civil nature. The O.P. has raised on documents as below :-
- Letter dated 04.09.2009,
- Letter dated 21.01.2010
- Letter dated 14.07.2010
- Letter dated 09.06.2014
- Letter dated 21.09.2011
- Letter dated 20.05.2014 & Sketch Plan
- Reserve right to file any other documents as and when required.
The complainant has not respond the intimation of the O.P. or paid any installment amount of deposit for that purpose, the amount of 1st year installment Rs. 1,64,615/- but the complainant has deposited Rs. 82,310/- as security amount and Rs. 13,000/- towards part license fee as well as EMU.
Perused the records and after verification of all documents and hearing of both the parities, the Forum has came to a conclusion that, the case is partly for commercial purpose it is for the passengers of Trains and the O.P. has not provide any service to the petitioner in this case. The petitioner has not obey the guidelines and terms and conditions of his contract for that, te deposited amount was forfeited for that purpose rather the complainant has deposited the prescribed license fee for the 1st year note open his stall in the Platform. By compulsion the O.P. has terminated the contract.
O R D E R.
The Hon’ble Forum has decided the case as it was for commercial purpose and the complainant has never fulfilled the terms and conditions of the O.P. as their contract and the contract between parties is not coming under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence this case is not maintainable and dismissed.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
Order pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 12th day of July 2016.
