This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 22-03-12 in the presence of Sri.B.Veeresh, advocate for complainant and of,            Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, Advocate for 1^st opposite party, Sri. C.Venkata Ramaiah, Advocate for 2^nd opposite party upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to pass award in favour of complainant and against opposite parties 1&2 for a sum of Rs.85,000/- (comprising of Rs.50,000/- towards the  value of the vehicle, Rs.20,0008/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation Rs.5,000/- legal expenses) with interest @12% p.a. from the date of complainant till realization.

2.   The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          Complainant is a owner of Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No. AP16AG2671.  1^st opposite party is an authorized licensed contractor for maintaining motor cycle stand in Guntur Railway station.  2^nd opposite party issued license to the 1^st opposite party for maintaining motor cycle stand. One Madikonda Sagar Babu a distant relative of complainant took motor bike of complainant from the complainant on 14-07-10 at about 7A.M and parked the same in 1^st opposite party motor bike stand which is in the premises of 2^nd opposite party and obtained token bearing No. 1007-05015 and went to Repalle to attend his personal work and returned to Guntur at about 10.30p.m. on the same day and found missing the vehicle from the stand and asked their supervisor of 1^st opposite party about the vehicle which was not traced and requested to 1^st opposite party to take steps to recover for missing of the motor bike .  1^st opposite party issued a letter 14-07-10 stating that he will recover the vehicle within one week.  Subsequently complainant along with the said Sekhar Babu visited 1^st opposite party for recovery of the vehicle but all efforts found futile.  It is a case of absolute negligence and deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party. Opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to trace the missing vehicle.  Ultimately on 31-07-10 Sagar Babu got issued a legal notice to opposite parties 1 & 2.  The cost of the vehicle is Rs.50,000/- approximately.  Both the opposite parties received the legal notice and kept quite.  Hence the complaint. 

3.    1^st opposite party filed its version which is in brief is as follows:

        Most of the allegations mentioned in the complaint are not true and correct and the complaint is not maintainable under law.  The averments of the complaint do not attract any provisions of consumer Protection Act.  If any grievance against opposite parties the complainant ought to have approached Civil Court. Medikonduru Sagar Babu never kept the said motor bike in the cycle stand of 1^st opposite party and that he is not owner of the vehicle.  1^st opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as claimed.  The complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file this complaint. Medikonduru Sagar Babu already filed CC 255/2010   against opposite parties for the same relief and the same was dismissed.  So the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4.      2^nd opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows : 

         Most of the allegations made in the complaint is not true and the same is not maintainable.  Similar complaint was filed by K.Sagar babu in CC255/2010 on same cause of action and the same was dismissed.  This opposite party has given contract to maintain Scooter Stand to 1^st opposite party for a period of 3 years from 03-10-09 to 02-10-12 and he is authorized to collect prescribed fee from the passengers and entitled to appropriate the same.  The 1^st opposite party has to pay the license fee as per the schedule.  This opposite party has nothing to do with the collection being made by 1^st opposite party from the customers.  The copy of agreement entered between 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is filed and the contents thereof may be read and part and parcel of this version.  As per the said agreement 2^nd opposite party is not liable for the acts of 1^st opposite party.   On receipt of the notice from Sagar Babu this opposite party addressed a letter dated 13-08-10 to the 1^st opposite party to settle the issue at his end and copy of the same was marked to the counsel of Sagar Babu.  There is no direct transaction between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant.  2^nd opposite party is not at all responsible for the hardship suffered by the complainant.  There is no agreement between the complainant and opposite parties.  As such there is no locus standi to file this complaint. Complaint may be dismissed against this opposite party with costs.

5.     Complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their respective affidavit in support of their versions.

6.      On behalf of complainant Ex.A-1 to A-7 are marked. On behalf of 2^nd opposite parties Ex.B-1 to B-3 are marked.

7.     NOW THE POINTS THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

8.      POINT NO-1   The case of the complainant is that he has given his motor bike to his relative Sagar Babu who parked  the motor bike at 1^st opposite parties motor bike stand on 14-07-10 at 7 am, obtained token for the said vehicle and went to Repalle to attend his personal work and on his return from Repalle he went to the motor bike stand of 1^st opposite party at about 10.30 pm on the same and found the vehicle missing, that he reported the same to the supervisor of 1^st opposite party, that 1^st opposite party issued a letter dated 14-07-10 stating that he will recover a vehicle with in a week, but subsequently 1^st opposite party failed to recover the same and hand over the said vehicle to Sagar Babu and that finally on 31-07-10 Sagar Babu got issued a legal notice to opposite parties 1 & 2  for which they did not give any reply.

9.     The case of 1^st opposite party is that the said Sagar Babu never kept his motor bike in his stand that he is not the owner of the vehicle, that the said Sagar Babu filed CC 255/10 on the file of this Forum for the same relief with same allegations and it was dismissed and that the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint.

10.   The case of 2^nd opposite party is that 1^st opposite party  is licensee of 2^nd opposite party, that 1^st opposite party has to collect the fee from the passengers and he is responsible for maintaining the scooter stand, that as per the agreement entered between opposite parties 1 & 2,  2^nd opposite party is not liable for the acts of 1^st opposite party and that on receipt of the notice from Sagar Babu 2^nd opposite party addressed a letter dated 13-08-10 to 1^st opposite party to settle the issue and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party and that he is not responsible for the hard ship suffered by the complainant.

11.   A perusal of Ex.A-1 certificate of registration reveals that the vehicle in question was in the name of the complainant.  Ex.A-2 is the token issued for parking the vehicle at Guntur Railway Station, Guntur on 14-07-10 at 7.26. Ex.A-3 latter dated 14-07-10 was issued by the contractor 1^st opposite party stating that the Hero Honda bearing No. AP16AG 2671 kept at Guntur railway station stand on 14-07-10 was missed and that he requested one week time for enquiring into the matter as to whether the said vehicle was taken away by somebody else. Ex.A-4 is the notice got issued by Sagar Babu, who kept the vehicle at the motor cycle stand.  A perusal of Ex.A-1 to A-4 reveals that the Hero Honda bike of complainant bearing No. AP16AG2671 was kept at the motor cycle stand of 1^st opposite party on 14-07-10 by one Sagar Babu relative of the complainant and it was found missing and that 1^st opposite party failed to trace out the same and hand over the same either to Sagar Babu or complainant herein. 1^st opposite party is the licensee of the 2^nd opposite party.  As seen from Ex.B-1 dated           13-08-10,2^nd opposite party addressed a letter stating that one Medikonda Sagar Babu got issued a legal notice and that according to the notice it is understood that one Hero Honda passion plus motor cycle bearing No.AP16AG2671 was not handed over by 1^st opposite party to the party and that 1^st opposite party is responsible for the custody of the motor cycle as per clause No.12(iii) of agreement dated 29-10-09 and that 2^nd opposite party directed 1^st opposite party to settle the issue and intimate the action taken to 2^nd opposite party.  As seen from Ex.B-3 agreement entered by opposite parties 1 & 2 as per clause 7 the licensee 1^st opposite party shall have insurance for motor cycles etc., against loss, theft or damages and 1^st opposite party shall pay premium regularly to the insurance company and submit receipt thereof to the railway administration along with copy of insurance policy and as per clause 12(iii) the licensee 1^st opposite party herein shall be solely responsible for the safe custody of motor cycle parked with 1^st opposite party and for any loss and damage caused to the motor cycle in the custody of 1^st opposite party shall indemnify the administration against all claims in respect of any loss caused to the motor cycle in the custody of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore in view of the above said clauses, 1^st opposite party shall obtain the insurance policy against the loss or damage of the motor cycles by paying the premium and in case of any claims 1^st opposite party shall indemnify the administration against all the claims.  As already stated above it was proved that the relative of complainant Sagar Babu kept motor bike Ap16AG 2671 at the motor stand of 1^st opposite party situated in the premises of 2^nd opposite party and that it was found missing and 1^st opposite party failed to hand over the said vehicle to the person who kept it there or to complainant.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we find deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party who shall indemnify the administration in respect of any loss or damage caused to the motor cycles in the custody of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, in view of clause 12(iii) of Ex.B-3 agreement opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay the value of the lost vehicle to the complainant and 1^st opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered.

12.   Even though it was alleged by opposite parties that one Sekhar Babu filed CC 255/10 on the file of this Forum for the same cause of action and it was dismissed as such the said contention of opposite parties cannot be accepted.  But they have not filed any evidence to that effect.  However the complainant in this case and earlier case are different.

13.    POINT NO. 2     complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- towards the value of the vehicle Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards expenses.  As seen from Ex.A-6 copy of invoice the vehicle in question was purchased by one Sangeetha Rao, on 15-04-04 for a sum of Rs.42,348/-  and as seen from Ex.A-1 registration certificate the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant.  It was not stated by complainant as to when he purchased the vehicle in question from Sangeetha Rao or for how much amount he purchased or how he could able to get the Registration of the vehicle in his name under Ex.A1. The value of the lost vehicle as on 15-04-04 is Rs.42,348/- (vide Ex.A-6) the vehicle kept in the stand of 1^st opposite party was lost on 14-07-10 (vide Ex.A-3).  If 10% depreciation is given to the vehicle in question for every year from the year 2004 onwards till 2010 it will come to about Rs.21,000/- by the date of loss of vehicle i.e,2010. Therefore, the value of the lost vehicle can be reasonably assessed to Rs.21,000/- by the date of loss of the vehicle and accordingly we fix the value of the vehicle at Rs.21,000/- . The amounts claimed by complainant under other heads are too high and they are imaginary.  Therefore, we feel it just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.3,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- against 1^st opposite party against whom we find deficiency of service.  Accordingly, we feel that awarding Rs.21,000/- towards the cost of the lost vehicle against opposite parties 1 &2 and awarding compensation of Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- against 1^st opposite party would meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly this point is answered.

14.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

1. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.21,000/-  to the complainant towards the value of the lost vehicle together with interest thereon @9%p.a. from 24-09-2011 date of complaint till realization. .

1. 1^st opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards the compensation.

1. 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards the costs of the complaint.

        The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks, failing which the amount awarded in Item 2 shall also carry interest @9%p.a. till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 29^th day of March, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: NIL

                                                                             PRESIDENT