GENERAL MANAGER, A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs TSECRETARY, EAST GODAWARI DISTRICT CONSUMER AID, ADVISE AND WELFARE SOCIETY

THIS order will dispose of both the above Revision Petitions as they are somewhat connected. The brief facts are that the present Respondent No. 1, Secretary, East Godawari District Consumer Aid, Advice and Welfare Society, Samakrishna Rao Pets, Kakinada had filed a complaint before the District Forum, East Godawari Rajahmundry against the Petitioners in both the Revision Petitions and P. Tatabhai, Cycle Stand Contractor who is Respondent No. 2 in these Revision Petitions and had been arrayed as Opposite Party No. 4 in the complaint. The case of the Complainant was that the cycle stand located at the A.P. State Roads Transport Corporation Bus Stand at Kakinada had been handed over to the Contractor and the said Contractor was collecting exorbitant and unreasonable rates by way of parking fee for two wheelers and cycles even if those vehicles are parked only for a short time. The rates of parking fee were also mentioned in the complaint. It was alleged that the rates charged by the Contractor were causing hardship to the citizens most of whom have to keep the vehicles just for two to three minutes. Comparison was also made about the parking fees which were being charged at State Bank of India, Government Hospitals and the Central Library in Kakinada. Hence the Complainant sought a direction to be given to the Opposite Parties to provide free parking zone for the public to keep their vehicle for short spells and also to direct the Opposite Parties not to collect parking fee of more than 25 paise per motor cycle and 10 paise per cycle at the said bus stand complex.

THE present Petitioners who were Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 and the Opposite Party No. 4 who was the Contractor filed counters contesting the complaint. It is not necessary to give their version as these are Revision Petitions. The District Forum vide order dated 20.2.92 allowed the complaint and directed the contractor to collect parking fee at the rate of 25 paise per motor cycle and 10 paise per cycle per day. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to reduce the license fee payable by the Contractor proportionately in view of the reduction of parking fee. Feeling aggrieved by that order the present Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Alongwith the memo of appeal application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed as the appeal had been filed beyond the period prescribed. However, the State Commission refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time barred.

THE Contractor also filed separate appeal before the said State Commission but the State Commission was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal was disposed of with the direction to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation''s Authorities to reduce licence fee to be collected from the Contractor from 28th June, 1992 proportionately out of the sum of Rs. 3,645/- collected every month from 1st July, 1992 to 9th April, 1993 and for the year 10th April, 1993 to 9th April, 1994 out of the sum of Rs. 4,192/-payable every month. The State Road Transport Authorities were also directed to intimate the proportionate amount payable out of the amount collected as aforementioned to the contractor within a period of one month from the date of the order.

THE present Petitioners have filed present Revision Petition o. 159 of 1994 against the order by which the State Commission refused to condone the dalay in the filing of their appeal and consequent dismissal of the appeal as time barred. Revision Petition No. 160 has been filed against the order passed by die State Commission in the appeal filed by the Contractor. After hearing the parties we are of the opinion that both the Revision Petitions have to be allowed. ''Deficiency'' in the rendering of service has been defined in the Consumer Protectgion Act, 1986 in clause (g) of Section 2(1) as follows: "Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

The Complainant has not been able to point out any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in performance of service by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation or by the Contractor. The Complainant''s grievance is that the Contractor was charging higher charges as compared to charges prevailing in other locations. By no stretch of imagination such a dispute fall within the purview of definition of ''deficiency'' as defined under the above Act. The question as to the reasonableness of the price charged for the performance of service cannot be agitated before a Consumer Forum constituted under the Act. Thus there was no consumer dispute between the parties.

THE State Commission ought to have exercised its suo motu revisional power even if the appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was time barred or in the alternative ought to have condoned the delay in the filing of appeal as there was no consumer dispute and the order passed by the District Forum was without jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, we accept both the Revision Petitions and set aside the impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum. We make no orders as to costs.