State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms Panda And Brothers, Represented By ... vs 1. Divisional Railway Manager ... on 5 January, 1998
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. CASE NO.248 OF 1993 Ms Panda and brothers, represented By Sri Sukanta Kumar Panda, son of Late Mahadev Panda, partner of M/s Panda & Brothers, At/P.O./P.S. Malgodown, Dist. Cuttack Complainant -Versus- 1. Divisional Railway Manager (S.E.Rly), at present East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, At/P.O./ P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khurda 2. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, (S.E.Rly) at present East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, P.O./P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khurda Opposite Parties For the Appellants : Mr.T.Mohapatra & Asssociates For the Respondent : Mr.N.Patra & Associates P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:-
The 2nd JULY, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
Arbitrary collection of service charges without providing service and deficiency in service by the opposite parties is the main grouse of the complainant, who has come to this Commission directly with this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.62,79,004/- on different counts including compensation for mental agony occasioned due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The complainant M/s Panda and Brothers represented by Sri Sukant Kumar Panda, partner of M/s Panda and Brothers, Malgodown, Cuttack town are admittedly salt merchants and the opposite parties are the Divisional Railway Manager, South-Eastern Railway and Senior Commercial Manager, South-Eastern Railway. The complainant applied to opposite party no.2 to allot the old L.P.O. shed of Malgodown, Cuttack on annual rent basis, and after due consideration, opposite party no.2 had provisionally allotted the said shed measuring 615 square metres in favour of the complainant in his letter dated 06.10.1992 with intimation to deposit Rs.2,24,940/-. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited, and an undertaking was submitted by the complainant as to the terms and conditions. The complainant also made repair of the L.P.O. shed according to clause 1 of the conditions. But, it was found that the shed had been occupied by the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.), Cuttack. It was stored with seized articles and was under lock and key. This matter was intimated to opposite party no.2 by the complainant in his letter dated 18.11.1992 and request was made for delivery of possession without delay. The complainant had already spent Rs.2,24,940/- by depositing the said amount in favour of the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 being a responsible officer did not respond to the letter even after collection of the afore-mentioned amount, as a result of which delivery of possession was not handed over and the targeted business of the complainant suffered and the complainant suffered irreparable loss. Thereafter, on 18.10.1993, opposite party no.2 issued a letter to the complainant for deposit of Rs.1,07,105/- towards annual rent for the year 1993-94. The complainant made several approaches and sent several reminders to the opposite parties for delivery of possession, but it was not heed to. At the same time, the opposite parties went on charging rent. Although the complainant spent huge money in the repair, even after the repair to the damage caused in the super cyclone in 1999, there was no adjustment made by the opposite parties towards the expenses incurred by the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant served legal notice and in response to that it was stated that the complainant should pay Rs.14,36,463/- before 31.10.2004, calculated at revised rate for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.10.2004, as the annual rent was fixed at Rs.1,07,105/- and the revised annual rent was sRs.1,45,564/- up to 31.03.2001 and again Rs.2,92,230/- from 01.04.2001 onwards.
3. The main grievance of the complainant in the complaint petition is that the opposite parties, even though had taken Rs.2,24,940/- towards security deposit and licence fee, they had not given physical possession of the old L.P.O. shed till 31.12.1996, which was pre-occupied by the Railway Protection Force, Cuttack. Again, the shed was made fit for use by the complainant incurring expenses twice and he spent huge amount of more than Rs.12,00,000/- in the duration of one year in one spell and 18 months in another spell. The amount of Rs.1,07,105/- in deposit in the State Bank of India, Cuttack in favour of the opposite parties exceeded the maturity period. There are averments regarding the calculation of exact amount of licence fee payable by the complainant and allegation of opposite party no.2 forcibly and arbitrarily making seizure of train load of salt consignment and collecting Rs.8,40,632/-, which is stated to be illegal, unjustified and sheer exhibition of deficiency in service.
4. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their written version jointly stating therein that the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint petition are false, frivolous and baseless. The actual fact is that the L.P.O. shed measuring 615 square metres at the Dock yard, Malgodown, Cuttack was allotted to the complainant temporarily by letter dated 06.10.1992 for the purpose of stacking materials except dangerous goods pending the General Managers personal approval for the said L.P.O. structure. The complainant was also asked to submit written undertaking regarding certain terms and conditions of maintenance, etc., and he submitted the undertaking before opposite party no.2 agreeing to all the terms and conditions in Annexure-1. After the allotment of the L.P.O. shed, the complainant remained silent and had never approached the opposite parties regarding taking over possession of the said L.P.O. shed. The opposite parties denied receipt of the letter and the alleged personal approaches made by the complainant for taking delivery of possession of the shed.
5. On the very reading of the written version, we find that the entire dispute is regarding accounts, which this Commission cannot effectively adjudicate as there are controversial issues involved in the dispute. Apart from that, the complainant admits in his complaint petition that he is a salt merchant and required the shed having an area of 615 square metres for stacking salt there. It is obvious that stacking of salt is for commercial purpose. As stated by him, he was sending wagon loads of salt and was also receiving wagon loads of salt, out of which some were seized by the opposite parties. The entire dispute is based on controversial facts and primarily the dispute relates to accounts. The shed taken on hire from the opposite parties being admittedly for stacking of huge quantity of salt and the complainant being a salt merchant, he does not come under the definition of consumer. The dispute being related to accounts and there being controversial factual issues, the grievance of the complainant is required to be redressed in the common law forum or in the civil forum, as in a summary manner the same cannot be adjudicated effectively here in this Commission.
6. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the consumer complaint and vacate the interim order dated 17.11.2004.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member .07.2009 Nayak