IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 464 of 1998()
1. P.C.PRASAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SPL.OFFICER,PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
A.S.No. 464 OF 1998
---------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
This appeal having come up for admission and after hearing
the learned counsel for the appellant, I am proceeding to dispose of
the matter as follows:
This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree
of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri in O.S. 269/1994. The defendant
in the suit had bid in auction the right to collect fees from the buses
entering the Perinthamanna bus stand and also from the taxi stand.
According to the Municipality at the expiry of the period an amount
of Rs. 54,071.50 was outstanding and hence the suit.
2. The defendant would contend that out of the total one year
4 days were lost on account of the private bus strike and one day
on account of the Bharat Bandh . It is also contended by the
defendant that during the relevant period there was a repair
effected to the Perinthalmanna bus stand which prevented the
private buses from entering into the bus stand. So he was unable
to collect the fees and therefore he is not liable to pay the amount
during that period. So far as the 4 days bus strike and Bhandh is
A.S. 464/1998
-2-
concerned, he moved an application before the Joint Director of the
Municipality who accepted it and thereby an amount of Rs. 4,000/-
had been deleted for the said period. The crucial point argued
before me is regarding the closure of the bus stand for repair for a
period of 35 days and so the defendant is not liable to remit bus
stand fee for 35 days. But the trial court found that the buses were
stopped on the road side and there was no prohibition in collecting
the charges from the taxi stand. Since there was an admission
that, from the buses stopped on the road side amount has been
collected, there was no deprivation of collection and therefore that
prayer was disallowed.
3. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that on the
strength of the right to collect the charges, the contractor was
collecting payment irrespective of the place where the bus was
stopped. It has to be remembered that when a person is deprived
of getting any amount for 4 days or 5 days, he is moving the
appropriate authority for reduction and when it comes to a question
of 35 days, he keeps quite and when a suit is instituted for
realisation of the amount he is raising such a contention. So
ordinarily under the normal human course of conduct this will not
be done. So it is under those circumstances coupled with other
A.S. 464/1998
-3-
factors the trial court came to the conclusion that amount has been
collected even during the closure of the bus stand for repairing.
I do not want to interfere with such a finding. But at the same
time, whether he must be saddled with that much of interest is a
question. When the whole bus stand is closed for repairs and one is
forced to collect the fees from the road side, it may not be possible
always to get the fee from each and every bus for the reason that
before the person reaches there, the bus would have left. So there
was some responsibility cast on the Municipality also that the
person who had bid in auction is given some method to collect the
amount. So one cannot call the defendant as a chronic defaulter.
Even though there is a term in the agreement to realise 12 = %
interest, I am inclined to reduce it to 6%. On all other aspects the
judgment and decree of the trial court is confirmed.
Therefore the appeal is disposed by confirming the judgment
with a modification that rate of interest be reduced from 12= %
to 6% and with a further direction that the Municipality need take
steps for recovery of the amount only after a period of six months
from today.
M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE
vkm