Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1030/2013

Amit Bagai - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. GM Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                                            (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                        NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./1030/2013                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Amit Bahai,

S/o Sh. S.R. Bagai,

A-316, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …… Complainant

Versus

1. The Chief Station Manager,

New Delhi Railway Station,

Northern Railways,

NCDR Building, State Entry Road,

New Delhi-110055.

 

2. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager,

Northern Railways, Baroda House,

New Delhi-110001.

 

3. Director,

Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,

Ministry of Railways,

Government of India,

Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.

 

4. M/s Akhtar Enterprises

C/o The Chief Station Manager,

New Delhi Railway Station, Northern Railways,

NCDR Building, State Entry Road,

New Delhi-110055

                                                                                     …….Opposite Parties

 

MEMBER- H.M. VYAS

ORDER

            The brief facts as per the complainant are that the OP charged Rs. 660/- for parking of his car for 16 Hours and 33 Minutes on 19/10/2011 in the premium parking at New Delhi Railway Station, Ajmeri Gate side.  It is alleged that the complainant entered from Ajmeri Gate side of the Railway station and was directed to the parking facility newly made operational.  There was neither any notice board depicting the charges nor any parking ticket was issued/given at the entry point mentioning the parking charges. The parking site appeared to be General Parking  facility where the complainant parked his car.  On return from Haridwar, the parking attendant collected the original parking ticket and issued a fresh bill/cash memo for Rs. 660/- and the complainant was compelled to pay said amount despite protest.  It is alleged that the complainant was first misled to park his car in the premium parking and had to pay Rs. 660/- in excess to Rs. 100/- (parking charges for 0-24 hours) due to alleged categorization of the parking facility as premium.  The complainant obtained the necessary information only under RTI Act as nothing was revealed by the parking attendant.

It is stated that the premium parking facility area is 3115.51 sq. meters at the contractual value of Rs. 3,88,80,000/- for three years and the area for general parking facility was 4903.16 Sq metre with contractual value of Rs. 4,6,44,000/- for 3 years. As per the information received under RTI Act the parking charges for first 2 years in the premium parking is Rs. 60/- and for each additional hour or part thereof is Rs. 40/-. It is alleged that such practice of misleading the consumer to use newly operational parking facility (premium) by suppressing  and concealing the rates and falsely representing extra benefits and quality of service, disproportionate and arbitrary levy of charges are unfair trade practice. The complainant sent notice to the Chief Station Manager was sent. The main grievances of the complainant are regarding, first, non-discloser/no display of the parking rates, charges at the entry gate of the premium parking, no extra facilities/services to the consumer in said premium parking site, levy of high parking charges without providing any extra facilities. Following prayer has been made:-

1. “To pass orders directing the OPs to pay a total compensation in sum of Rs. 46,000/- to the complainant.
2. To pass orders directing the OPs to discontinue, the restrictive and unfair trade practices, of imposing unjustified costs, that have been fixed in an disproportionate and arbitrary  manner to benefit the Contractor/Licensee, for parking at the Premium Parking, New Delhi Railway Station (Ajmeri Gate Side) on the Consumer.
3. To pass orders authorising the Ld. Hon’ble Register to file a Criminal Complaint u/s 23 of the consumer Protection Regulation, 2005.
4. To pass orders and such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the complaint.”

 

The OPs were noticed. OP-1 to 3 contested the case and filed written statement. None appeared for OP-4 after notice and therefore was proceeded with Ex-parte on 19/07/2019. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 to OP-3.

Both the parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. Both the parties addressed oral arguments as well.

In the written statement OP- to OP-3 stated that the complainant is not a consumer and no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to OP-3 nor any deficiency on the part of OP-4 has been there. It is however, stated that the levy of Rs. 660/- was as per the scheduled parking charges. The complainant himself has placed the copy of the schedule of parking charges. It is also stated that the OP-4 has charged as per the prescribed rates for parking the car for more than 16 hours. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments      of the parties with relevant provisions of law.

The main grievance alleged in the complaint relates to parking facility, levy of charges, non-discloser of the rates of parking at the entry point of the premium parking beside no extra facility to the consumer in the said premium parking area. All these allegations do not relate to the OP-1 to OP-3  and rather relate to OP-4. Since none appeared for OP-4 after notice, it was proceeded Ex-parte.

During the course of the arguments  the Ld. counsel for OP-1 to OP-3 stated that the contract with OP-4 regarding the premium parking site does not exist now and the OP-4 is not the present licensee.

The testimony of the complainant has remained unrebuted by the OP-4 and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The OP-1 to OP-3 though has contested that the levy of parking charges was as per prescribed rates but there is no dispute with regard to other allegations. Further, the OP-4 is the licensee of the OP-1 to OP-3 and the operation of the parking site was under the responsibility of OP-4.

In view of the above, we hold the OP-4 to be deficient in service and also unfair trade practice by not displaying the details/rates of the parking of the vehicle and not providing any premium/extra facilities in comparison to general parking.  The factum that the complainant’s car remain parked for more than 16 hours therefore the charges equivalent parking in general parking fees admitted and the prayer to refund entire amount of Rs. 660/- is not acceptable. We, therefore, direct as under :-

1. OP-4 to refund the sum of Rs. 560/- (i.e. Rs. 660/- charges for premium parking minus Rs. 100/- charges for 24 hours in general parking.) The factum that the complainant’s car remain parked for more than 16 hours therefore the charges equivalent parking in general parking fees admitted and the prayer to refund entire amount of Rs. 660/- is not acceptable.

2. To pay sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for harassment.

 3.  to pay sum of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation charges. 

We do not find any deficiency in service/or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 to OP-3.

A copy each of this order be sent to all the parties to the case free of cost by post as per statutory requirement.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.                                              

File be consigned to record room.

     Pronounced in open Forum on _01/08/2019    

                                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                 PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                     MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER