SURAT CITIZENS' COUNCIL TRUST vs STATION SUPERINTENDENT, SURAT RAILWAY STATION

STATION Superintendent, Surat of Western Railway had given a contract to Mohan H., Vani, since deceased, (deceased for short) for providing pay and park facility at Surat Railway station. Mohan H. Vani was joined as opponent No. 2 in this complaint but he died pending the hearing of the complaint, his legal representative i.e., his widow has been brought on record in place of the deceased Mohan H. Vani.

THE grievance which is made in the complaint is that deceased was recovering charges double than the charges fixed under the contract for parking vehicles. It is, therefore, that the present complaint is filed by Surat Citizens'' Council Trust and I.J. Desai in his personal capacity against the Station Superintendent of Surat Railway Station who is joined as opponent No. 1 and the deceased. It is not necessary to set out in detail the allegations made in the complaint since at the time of hearing of this complaint, the complainant pressed only the following reliefs viz. (1) recovery of Rs. 15/-; (2) compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and hardship and (3) cost of Rs. 10,000/- from opponent No. 2. It is alleged that the deceased had recovered Rs. 30/- instead of Rs. 15/- from complainant No. 2 I.J. Desai for parking his car. It is on that allegation that reliefs as stated above are claimed against opponent No. 2 as legal representative of the deceased.

There is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the complainants that the deceased had recovered Rs. 30/- instead of Rs. 15/- from complainant No. 2. This statement is supported by documentary evidence in form of receipts. It is not disputed on behalf of opponent No. 1 that the deceased could not have recovered more than Rs. 15/- from complainant No. 2 under the terms of the contract. Opponent No. 2 has not appeared to contest the complaint. Under the circumstances, as observed above, there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant''s statement that Rs. 30/- instead of Rs. 15/- were recovered from complainant No. 2. Complainant No. 2 is, therefore, entitled to recover this amount from opponent No. 2 to the extent of the property of the deceased in her hands. However, so far as relief of compensation is concerned, there appears to be no justification to grant it. The order regarding cost is passed in the final order.

IN the result, this complaint is partly allowed and opponent No. 2 is directed to pay to complainant No. 2 Rs. 15/- together with cost of Rs. 200/-. The liability of opponent No. 2 will be limited to the extent to that of the property which she has inherited from the deceased. The complaint against opponent No. 1 shall stand dismissed, with no order as to costs. Complaint partly allowed.