Sri Subrata Bhattacharya,

son of late Sailendra Kr. Bhattacharya,

residing at 69/3, Lalababu Shree Road, Belurmath,

Howrah – 711202.---------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Belur Yuba Samity,

2, Sarat Chandra Atta Lane,

Belurmath, P.S. Bally,

District – Howrah,

Howrah  – 711101.

2.      The Secretary,

Belur Yuba Samity,

2, Sarat Chandra Atta Lane, Belurmath,

P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 202.

3.      The President,

Belur Yuba Samity,

2, Sarat  Chandra Atta lane, Belurmath, P.S Bally,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 7111 202.----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as

amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. for payment of all the repairing charges of the vehicle being no. WB 16 H 0521, got damaged at the custody of O.Ps. together with Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with other order or orders as he entitled to.  

2.                  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is used to parking his vehicle

i.e., Maruti Omini bearing no. WB 16 H 0521 at the ground of Belur Yuba Samity and paid necessary charges monthly to the said authority. In the mean time the vehicle of the complainant wrongly detained by tieing with iron with ground roller by o.ps. which was noticed by the complainant to the O.Ps. verbally / written. The O.Ps. did not take any proper action in spite of several requests resultant he lodged F.I.R. to the local P.S. Subsequently the vehicle was released on 27-09-2012  with the help of police interference in damaged condition. Thereafter the complainant contacted with Maruti Service Centre who subsequently chalked out an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as repairing charges of the vehicle. Being aggrieved and finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case praying for above  mentioned relief.

3.                  Notices were served upon O.Ps. The O.ps. appeared and filed their written

version. Accordingly the case was heard on merits. The O.Ps. through their written version contending interalia admitted the facts for payment as donation for parking the vehicle at their play ground in order to meet their monthly expenses from that accumulated  fund. The O.Ps. admitted the facts leading behind that the petitioner / complainant used to park his vehicle Maruti Omnis being no. WB-16H-0521 at the ground of Belur Yuba Samity with initial payment of Rs. 200/- subsequently enhanced by Rs. 400/- and duly paid the bill amount time to time and also not denial for returning the vehicle on 27-09-2012 to the petitioner.

4.                  The O.Ps. also opined that there was no contact for giving any service nor the

duty to protect the vehicle and as such question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all under which the case liable to be dismissed on merit.

5.                  Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complainant is a consumer ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have gone through

the written version and B.N.A. of the O.Ps. along with documents and noted the contents therein.

7.                  It admitted facts that the complainant paid a token money to the authority

regularly on monthly basis and the club authority acknowledged the same through money receipts mentioning therein the particular number of the vehicle bearing no. WB 16H 0521 of the complainant. As the complainant paid the consideration money through money receipt against vehicle he would be treated as consumer U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. It is an admitted facts that the complainant entered into an agreement praying for parking his vehicle which was duly been accepted by the authority concern and the consumer / complainant paid the consideration money against his parking vehicle. By this he ought to demand the service U/S 2(1)(g) as a Consumer as elaborated above. Moreover, the O.P. failed to provide the service to the consumer against safety and security of the vehicle and the vehicle got damaged during the custody of the authority concerned for which he ( herein the complainant ) had to pay Rs. 50,000/- as repairing charges of the said vehicle as he has no fault of his own. It is the primary duty of the O.Ps. to save the vehicle at the time where the vehicle was under the custody of club authority which tantamount the gross negligence and the action of the O.Ps. are  deficient in nature. In the case O.Ps. harassed the complainant by doing an act of negligence and irresponsible attitude and the O.Ps. failed to prove any cogent evidence that O.Ps. action is positive for settlement the claim of the complainant.

8.                  Therefore we hold our considered opinion that the O.Ps. have deficiency in

service by not taking due care for safe guard and proper security of the parking vehicle resulted the vehicle got damaged under the custody of O.P. against which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall have to incur for repairing the damage vehicle by the complainant.

As it is already proved that O.Ps. have deficiency in service, therefore the

complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 30  of 2013 ( HDF 30 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps.  are hereby  directed jointly and severally  to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as a cost of repairing for damaged vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

      The complainant is  also entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and harassment perpetuated upon him at the instance of  the O.Ps.

      The o.ps. do also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

      If the entire amount as per order will be paid within 30 days as per order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.