NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2231 OF 2000 (From the order dated 28.7.2000 in Appeal No.1143/98 of the State Commission, Punjab) Union Government of India, Department of Railways Through Divisional Manager, Firozepur Division Petitioner Vs. R.L. Aggarwal Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER. HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Parking at railway station - contractor charging higher amount than fixed by the railways - no proper action by the railways against the contractor. Held- both railway and contractor deficient in service. Direction was also issued to display sign boards at conspicuous places for the charges for parking. For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate O R D E R
DATED THE 23rd
May, 2001.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
This
petition is by the Railways seeking revision of the order of the State
Commission. By the impugned order,
State Commission held that there was deficiency in service rendered by the
Railway Administration where Railway Administration could not stop exploitation
of the public who park their vehicles in the parking lot licensed by the
Railway Administration to a contractor.
State Commission held the
Railways and contractors jointly and severally liable to pay to the
complainant compensation of Rs.15,000/-
and also imposed Rs.2000/- as costs.
The order of the State Commission
is dated 28th July, 2000.
One months time was given for making payments as per the order. Railway Administration is the only
petitioner before us and the complainant is the sole respondent. The two contracts who had been held liable
jointly and severally with the Railway Administration have not been impleaded
as respondents.
Complainant
parked his scooter at the cycle stand of the railway Station at Ludhiana. Parking fee was 50 Paise as displayed on the board showing the rates fixed by the Railway
Administration. However, complainant was charged Rs.3/- by the contractor.
When the complainant protested he was abused and insulted. Complainant is a professor. He protested but of no avail. He went
to the Station Master who showed his helplessness and asked the complainant to
write his complaint in the complaint book which was given to him. Complainant duly recorded the
complaint. He was not communicated if
any action was taken on this complaint in spite of his writing letters to the
Station Master as well as to the Additional
Divisional Railway Manager at Ferozepur. Complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum. He sought refund of Rs.12/- i.e. Rs.9.50
plus Rs.2.50 with a prayer that Railway Administration and the contractor
should be made directly responsible for the malpractice as the contractor used
to fleece public. As many as 300
scooters are parked at the cycle stand everyday. Railway Administration said that after investigation of the complaint, contractor was fined
Rs.500/- which he deposited with the Railway Administration. No further action was taken against him. it was submitted before us that the
contrator has since left the contract and new one has taken over. It is not that the contract of the previous contractor was
terminated because of the complaint of complainant but rather because his
period had expired. Complainant also
made a prayer that the amount charged in excess by the contractor from the
public may be got refunded from the contractor or the Railway Authorities and
be deposited in the consumer welfare funds.
This prayer was not acceded to by the District Forum. however, District Forum held that there was
no deficiency in service on the part of
the petitioner though it had taken action belatedly in the matter
against the contractor by imposing a fine of Rs.500 on him. District Forum refused to grant any relief
to the complainant and went on to say:
Moreover, charging
of Rs.2.50 extra than the prescribed rate is too trivial a matter to be taken
note of. As such, no relief can be
granted to the complainant in this complaint which is accordingly dismissed.
Complainant was
however, saved of cost of the
complaint.
Both the
contractors, previous one and the present had been made parties before the
District Forum. The matter was taken
to the State Commission by the complainant.
Complainant contended that the contractor was dealing in unfair trade
practice. During the pendency of the
appeal before the State Commission complainant received a draft of Rs.9.50 from
the contractor of the parking lot.
This amount the complainant refused to accept. He wanted to pursue his appeal.
He said it was not merely to get the amount of Rs.9.50 that he had taken
all the trouble and bore huge expenditure involved in litigation. He said his motivation was that law of land should prevail and also
to stop the blatantly exploitation of
the common people parking their vehicles at the parking lot under the Railway
Administration which was being committed by the contractor right under the nose
of the officials of the Railway Administration. His further grievance was that anyone who objected to charging of
the extra amount by the contractor was
insulted, humiliated and at times even manhandled. State Commission remarked that courage and endurance of the
complainant needed to be appreciated.
State Commission, therefore, looked into the terms of the lease
agreement under which parking lot was leased by the Railway Administration to
the contractor and held that there was deficiency in service for parking
scooters and cycles at that place. It
was submitted by the complainant that the contractor never abided by the terms
of the lease agreement and indulged in all sorts of malpractice by
fleecing the public. State Commission, therefore, held that
Railway Administration was equally liable for deficiency in rendering service
or collection of more charges by the contractor than provided in the rules. State commission, therefore, allowed the
appeal, held the Railway Administration jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as
compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
Before
concluding we may observe that the District Forum rather appreciating the
action of the complainant coming before it and taking cudgels on behalf of
general public who normally shy away, made fun of him by saying that
charging of Rs.2.50 extra than the
prescribed rate was too trivial a matter for the District Forum to be taken
notice of. We do not approve of this
remark by the District Forum. It did
not consider the gravity of the situation
and thought of the case of the
complainant only in isolation as one case. We compliment the complainant for his
stand.
Railway
Administration enters into lease agreement for leasing out the parking
lot. It can put stringent conditions
in case of any breach of the terms of the lease where particularly when the
contractor charges higher amount or misbehaves with the customer. Imposing a fine of 500 when 300 scooters are
parked in the stand every day and when there is blatant over charge, is hardly
a deterrent for a contractor.
Every complaint should be investigated immediately and if
found correct, stringent action should be taken against the contractor even to
the extent of terminating his contract.
Sign boards should be displayed at all conspicuous places near about the
parking lot about the charges and also printed in bold letters on the receipt to
be given for the parking. The impugned
order of the State Commission rather being an eye opener for the Railway
Administration, it thought fit to challenge the same before us.
We agree
with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any error in the
reasoning of the State Commission for us to interfere with the same in the
exercise of our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer
Protection Act. Revision petition is
dismissed.
J
(D.P.
WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
J
(C.L.
CHAUDHRY)
MEMBER
J
(J.K.
MEHRA)
MEMBER
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO )
MEMBER
.
(B.K.
TAIMNI)
MEMBER