UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS vs R.L.AGGARWAL

THIS petition is by the Railways seeking revision of the order of the State Commission. By the impugned order, State Commission held that there was deficiency in service rendered by the Railway Administration where Railway Administration could not stop exploitation of the public who park their vehicles in the parking lot licensed by the Railway Administration to a contractor. State Commission held the Railways and contractors jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and also imposed Rs.2000/- as costs. The order of the State Commission is dated 28th July, 2000. One month''s time was given for making payments as per the order. Railway Administration is the only petitioner before us and the complainant is the sole respondent. The two contractors who had been held liable jointly and severally with the Railway Administration have not been impleaded as respondents.

COMPLAINANT parked his scooter at the cycle stand of the railway Station at Ludhiana. Parking fee was 50 Paise as displayed on the board showing the rates fixed by the Railway Administration. However, complainant was charged Rs.3/- by the contractor. When the complainant protested he was abused and insulted. Complainant is a professor. He protested but of no avail. He went to the Station Master who showed his helplessness and asked the complainant to write his complaint in the complaint book which was given to him. Complainant duly recorded the complaint. He was not communicated if any action was taken on this complaint in spite of his writing letters to the Station Master as well as to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager at Ferozepur. Complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum. He sought refund of Rs. 12/- i.e. Rs.9.50 plus Rs.2.50 with a prayer that Railway Administration and the contractor should be made directly responsible for the malpractice as the contractor used to fleece public. As many as 300 scooters are parked at the cycle stand everyday. Railway Administration said that after investigation of the complaint, contractor was fined Rs.500/- which he deposited with the Railway Administration. No further action was taken against him. it was submitted before us that the contrator has since left the contract and new one has taken over. It is not that the contract of the previous contractor was terminated because of the complaint of complainant but rather because his period had expired. Complainant also made a prayer that the amount charged in excess by the contractor from the public may be got refunded from the contractor or the Railway Authorities and be deposited in the consumer welfare funds. This prayer was not acceded to by the District Forum. However, District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner though it had taken action belatedly in the matter against the contractor by imposing a fine of Rs.500 on him. District Forum refused to grant any relief to the complainant and went on to say: "Moreover, charging of Rs.2.50 extra than the prescribed rate is too trivial a matter to be taken note of. As such, no relief can be granted to the complainant in this complaint which is accordingly dismissed". Complainant was however, saved of cost of the complaint.

Both the contractors, previous one and the present had been made parties before the District Forum. The matter was taken to the State Commission by the complainant. Complainant contended that the contractor was dealing in unfair trade practice. During the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission complainant received a draft of Rs.9.50 from the contractor of the parking lot. This amount the complainant refused to accept. He wanted to pursue his appeal. He said it was not merely to get the amount of Rs.9.50 that he had taken all the trouble and bore huge expenditure involved in litigation. He said his motivation was that law of land should prevail and also to stop the blatantly exploitation of the common people parking their vehicles at the parking lot under the Railway Administration which was being committed by the contractor right under the nose of the officials of the Railway Administration. His further grievance was that anyone who objected to charging of the extra amount by the contractor was insulted, humiliated and at times even manhandled. State Commission remarked that courage and endurance of the complainant needed to be appreciated. State Commission, therefore, looked into the terms of the lease agreement under which parking lot was leased by the Railway Administration to the contractor and held that there was deficiency in service for parking scooters and cycles at that place. It was submitted by the complainant that the contractor never abided by the terms of the lease agreement and indulged in all sorts of malpractice by fleecing the public. State Commission, therefore, held that Railway Administration was equally liable for deficiency in rendering service or collection of more charges by the contractor than provided in the rules. State commission, therefore, allowed the appeal, held the Railway Administration jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as Costs.

BEFORE concluding we may observe that the District Forum rather appreciating the action of the complainant coming before it and taking cudgels on behalf of general public who normally shy away, made fun of him by saying that charging of Rs.2.50 extra than the prescribed rate was too trivial a matter for the District Forum to be taken notice of. We do not approve of this remark by the District Forum. It did not consider the gravity of the situation and thought of the case of the complainant only in isolation as one case. We compliment the complainant for his stand.

RAILWAY Administration enters into lease agreement for leasing out the parking lot. It can put stringent conditions in case of any breach of the terms of the lease where particularly when the contractor charges higher amount or misbehaves with the customer. Imposing a fine of 500 when 300 scooters are parked in the stand every day and when there is blatant over charge, is hardly a deterrent for a contractor. Every complaint should be investigated immediately and if found correct, stringent action should be taken against the contractor even to the extent of terminating his contract. Sign boards should be displayed at all conspicuous places near about the parking lot about the charges and also printed in bold letters on the receipt to be given for the parking. The impugned order of the State Commission rather being an eye opener for the Railway Administration, it thought fit to challenge the same before us. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any error in the reasoning of the State Commission for us to interfere with the same in the exercise of our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Revision petition is dismissed.