Appeal No.1021/08


Rajendra Khichar Complainant Appellant

V.

1.

B.R.Agrawal,Parking Contractor,Railway
2.

Divisional Railway Manager,Jaipur Respondents



Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Ranjeet Khichar,counsel for the appellant

Smt.Maya Bansal,counsel for res.no.1

Shri Anil Saxena,counsel for res.no.2



Date of judgement: 28.4.2009


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 22.4.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.1067/06,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 14.9.06 interalia stating that res.no.2,the railway administration had given the annual contract for parking of the vehicles to res.no.1 and res.no.1 after charging reasonable charges maintains the vehicles kept in the parking area. It was further stated in the complaint that

2


on the night of 30/31.8.06,the complainant appellant was going from Jaipur to Jodhpur and,therefore,his car bearing registration no.RJ.18.C.3517 was parked in the parking area maintained by res.no.1 and he had paid Rs.5/- as charges for the parking and that is evident from annex.1 the receipt. It was further stated in the complaint that after coming from Jodhpur on 1.9.06 at about 6.30 in the morning when he intended to take his car which was parked on the night of 30.8.06,the res.no.1 demanded Rs.40/- and when he asked the clarification,res.no.1 did not give the clarification and ultimately he had to pay Rs.40/- on 1.9.06 and thereafter he had taken his car, but according to the complainant appellant charging of Rs.40/- was not justified at all, and thus by doing so there was not only deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, but the res.no.1 had played unfair trade practice with the complainant appellant and for that the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by res.no.2 and the case of res.no.2 was that an agreement was executed between res.no.1 & 2 on 4.1.06 and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, if a vehicle is kept for 4 hours, a sum of Rs.5/- would be charged and for further 4 hours Rs.5/- continously would be charged and thus the res.no.1 had rightly charged Rs.40/- as the vehicle in question was was kept for more than 31 hours meaning thereby the vehicle was parked for more than 31 hours on 1.9.06,therefore, a sum of Rs.40/- were rightly charged by res.no.1.


Similarly a reply was also filed by res.no.1 on 31.10.06 and it was replied that since the vehicle was parked on 30.8.06 at about 11 P.M and since the vehicle was taken on 1.9.06 at about 6.30 A.M,therefore,as per terms of the agreement the sum was rightly demanded and charged as the vehicle in question had remained parked for more than 31 hours and it was prayed that the complaint

3


be dismissed.

The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 22.4.08 had dismissed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement Rs.5/- were rightly charged for 4 hours and since the vehicle had remained parked in the parking area for more than 31 hours,therefore,additional Rs.40/- were also rightly charged by res.no.1 from the complainant appellant and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that a bare perusal of condition no.7 (a) of the agreement does not reveal at all that after 4 hours, a fresh Rs.5/- would be charged and thus,the respondents could not take the shelter of clause 7(a) of the agreement and from that point of view,charging of Rs.40/- was not justified at all, and it was prayed that the appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.


We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the vehicle in question was parked on 30.8.06 at about 11 P.M and the vehicle in question was taken by the complainant appellant on 1.9.06 at 6.30 A.M, meaning thereby the vehicle had remained parked for more

4


than 31 hours and later on on 1.9.06 at the time of taking the vehicle,the complainant appellant had to further pay a sum of Rs.40/- and there is also no dispute on the point that initially on 30.8.06 the complainant appellant had paid a sum of Rs.5/- . There is also no dispute on the point that in annex.1 the receipt which was given by res.no.1 it was specifically mentioned that for 4 hours a sum of Rs.5/- would be charged. Similarly in clause 7(a) of the agreement which is quoted here:


“(a) For 4 hours or part thereof Rs.5/-(rupee five only) per car/taxi.”


It was clearly mentioned that for 4 hours a sum of Rs.5/- would be charged.

The question for consideration in the facts and circumstances is whether if the vehicle is kept for more than 4 hours, res.no.1 could charge Rs.5/-for additional 4 hours or not;

In our considered opinion,looking to the above condition as is found in the agreement and looking to the condition as is found in receipt (annex.1) where it was mentioned that for 4 hours a sum of Rs.5/- would be charged, but if for additional hours the condition is silent,but it does not mean that no amount would further be charged if the vehicle was kept for more than 4 hours. Had there would have been an intention to charge only Rs.5/- per vehicle the rider of 4 hours would have not been put. Thus this Commission is of the view that the res.no.1 had the implied power to charge Rs.5/- more for additonal 4 hours for keeping the vehicle in the parking.


Since in the present case the vehicle in question had remained parked for more than 31 hours,therefore,if the res.no.1 had charged Rs.40/- more it could not be said that he was guilty of deficiency in

5


service in any manner or further it could not be said that he had played unfair trade practice with the complainant appellant.


From that point of view,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality. Hence no interference is called for and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed.



Member President