SUDARSAN NAYAK Vs. PARDIP PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the Commissions order dated 26.3.2004 whereby Paradip Port Trust opposite party No.1 was directed to pay Rs.1,25,068 deposited towards licence fee, security deposit and earnest money; Rs.1,96,650 towards cost of fingerlings, Rs.1,00,000 towards expenses incurred on construction of shed and expenditure on watch and ward and interest @ 10% p.a. on this amount from the date of filing of complaint, the opposite party No.1 had filed CA No.6281 of 2004 in the Supreme Court and the court has remanded the matter to this Commission by the order dated 29th July, 2009 which being material, is reproduced below:

(2.) PLEADINGS of the parties need be referred to, in brief. Complainant alleged that he is a self -employed person. His occupation is to collect fish from the fishermen operating within the port area, and to breed and rear the fish by taking ponds/reservoirs on license/lease basis, for the purpose of selling of fish to earn livelihood. In the year 1994, he came to know that opposite party No.1 was contemplating to license out its reservoirs through open invitation by way of public notice"His friends Jayaprakash Sahu, Narendra Kumar Swain, Ashok Kumar Bisoi, Kanduri Charan Swain, Kavi Charan Sahu and Sachidanand Biswal who were also engaged in similar occupation, agreed to join him in the venture. Auction was scheduled to be held on 11.1.94. It was stated that the complainant for himself and on behalf of his said friends submitted application to the port Authority. Highest bid of the complainant of Rs.93,051 for reservoir No.1 at Balijhara, Paradip Port, Jagatsinghpur port was accepted. By the letter dated 21.2.94, he was asked to deposit amount of Rs.1,25,068 towards licence fee, security and earnest money which he did. Under the terms and conditions of licence conveyed through the letter dated 12.3.94 issued by the opposite party -Authority, complainant had the right of breeding, rearing and catching of fish in reservoir No.1 for the period from 11.3.94 to 10.3.96. The complainant purchased 843 kgs. of fingerlings from M/s Maa Chandi Fish Products, West Bengal to breed and rear the fish in the said reservoir at a cost of Rs.1,96,650. By the letter dated 4.10.94 the complainant sought permission of opposite party No.2 to catch the fish from the reservoir. He was not given permission nor any reply to the letter was received by him. Letter dated 20.4.95 was received by the complainant from opposite party No.2 to show cause against alleged violation of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Special Conditions of Licence which was replied. Complainant received letter dated 15.2.96 from opposite party No.3 on 27.2.96 to arrange men and material to catch the fish within a short span of 10 days. Extension of time sought by the complainant was declined. Alleging deficiency in service a complaint for a total amount of Rs.34,44,518, the details whereof are given in para No.22 of the complaint was filed by the complainant which was contested by the opposite parties by filing written version.

(3.) IT was alleged that complainant is not a ˜consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The dispute raised is a contractual dispute arising out of the breaches committed of the conditions of licence and is not a consumer dispute. It was admitted that complainant had submitted application for himself and on behalf of his friends pursuant to the auction notice. It was also not disputed that the complainant being the highest bidder, was allotted reservoir No.1 for the purpose of breeding, rearing and catching of fish. Complainant had committed breach of Clauses 3 and 4 of the special conditions of licence. It was denied that amount of Rs.10,000 was spent on construction of rest shed as alleged. Liability to refund/pay the amount claimed was denied.