BEENA KANNAN Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, by order dated 12/03/2010 notice was ordered to be served on the respondent by special messenger. Accordingly, notice specifying 17/03/2010 as the date of hearing, was served on him. However, when the case was taken up on 17/03/2010, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, and therefore, the case was adjourned to today and today also, there is no appearance on his behalf. Therefore, the writ petition was heard finally.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed CC No. 11/2010 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as CDRF for short) complaining that the petitioner herein is collecting Rs. 500/- each as parking fees from the customers, who park their vehicles in the car parking area of her shop, Seematti Textiles, Ernakulam. It is also alleged that the amount collected is not refunded to those do not buy goods from her shop. According to the respondent, this practice is a Restrictive Trade Practice and Unfair Trade Practice as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the complaint, the respondent herein sought directions to the petitioner, to refund Rs. 500/- collected from him with 12% interest, to declare that the collection of parking fee is an unfair and restrictive trade practice, and to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. A copy of the complaint is Ext.P1. Along with the complaint, I.A. No. 14/2010, a copy of which is Ext.P2, was also filed praying for a direction to the petitioner to refrain from collecting parking fee @ Rs. 500/-.

(3.) In I.A. No. 14/2010, the CDRF passed Ext.P3 exparte order dated 11/01/2010 directing the petitioner to forthwith refrain from levying parking fee from the customers, who visit her shop. On being served notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit justifying the levy of parking fee. The matter was heard and Ext.P5 order dated 03/02/2010 was passed by the CDRF, holding that it is of the considered view that the practice of levying Rs. 500/-, under whatever name, is illegal and unreasonable. Taking into account the submissions made, Ext.P3 interim order was modified permitting the petitioner to levy an amount not more than Rs. 50/- as parking charges till the disposal of the complaint.