PANDA AND BROTHERS Vs. DRM, S.E. RLY.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARBITRARY collection of service charges without providing service and deficiency in service by the opposite parties is the main grouse of the complainant, who has come to this Commission directly with this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 62,79,004 on different counts including compensation for mental agony occasioned due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

(2.) THE complainant M/s. Panda and Brothers represented by Sri Sukant Kumar Panda of M/s. Panda and Brothers, Malgodown, Cuttact town are admittedly salt merchants and the opposite parties are the Divisional Railway Manager, South -Eastern Railway and Senior Commercial Manager, South -Eastern Railway. The complainant applied to opposite party No. 2 to allot the old L.P.O. shed of Malgodown, Cuttack on annual rent basis, and after due consideration, opposite party No. 2 had provisionally allotted the said shed measuring 615 square metres in favour of the complainant in his letter dated 6.10.1992 with intimation to deposit Rs. 2,24,940. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited, and an undertaking was submitted by the complainant as to the terms and conditions. The complainant also made repair of the L.P.O. shed according to Clause 1 of the conditions. But, it was found that the shed had been occupied by the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.), Cuttack. It was stored with seized articles and was under lock and key. This matter was intimated to opposite party No. 2 by the complainant in his letter dated 18.11.1992 and request was made for delivery of possession without delay. The complainant had already spent Rs. 2,24,940 by depositing the said amount in favour of the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 being a responsible officer did not respond to the letter even after collection of the afore -mentioned amount, as a result of which delivery of possession was not handed over and the targeted business of the complainant suffered and the complainant suffered irreparable loss. Therafter, on 18.10.1993, opposite party No. 2 issued a letter to the complainant for deposit of Rs. 1,07,105 towards annual rent for the year 1993 -94. The complainant made several approaches and sent several reminders to the opposite parties for delivery of possession, but it was not heed to. At the same time, the opposite parties went on charging rent. Although the complainant spent huge money in the repair, even after the repair to the damage caused in the super cyclone in 1999, there was no adjustment made by the opposite parties towards the expenses incurred by the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant served legal notice and in response to that it was stated that the complainant should pay Rs. 14,36,463 before 31.10.2004, calculated at revised rate for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.10.2004, as the annual rent was fixed at Rs. 1,07,105 and the revised annual rent was Rs. 1,45,564 up to 31.3.2001 and again Rs. 2,92,230 from 1.4.2001 onwards.

(3.) THE main grievance of the complainant in the complaint petition is that the opposite parties, even though had taken Rs. 2,24,940 towards security deposit and licence fee, they had not given physical possession of the old L.P.O. shed till 31.12.1996, which was pre -occupied by the Railway Protection Force, Cuttack. Again, the shed was made fit for use by the complainant incurring expenses twice and he spent huge amount of more than Rs. 12,00,000 in the duration of one year in one spell and 18 months in another spell. The amount of Rs. 1,07,105 in deposit in the State Bank of India, Cuttack in favour of the opposite parties exceeded the maturity period. There are averments regarding the calculation of exact amount of licence fee payable by the complainant and allegation of opposite party No. 2 forcibly and arbitrarily making seizure of train load of salt consignment and collecting Rs. 4,40,632 which is stated to be illegal, unjustified and sheer exhibition of deficiency in service.