Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. Sh.Bhupinder Singh, complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that on 20.05.2018 at about 9.00 AM, he parked his vehicle/ motor cycle at the parking, Near Bus Stand, G.T.Road, Moga and the contractor/ employee of Parking gave a receipt bearing No.3458 dated 20.05.2018. The complainant alleges that at about 5.00 PM when he returned back and visited the parking place to get his vehicle, he could not find out his vehicle and thereafter, he asked the employee present in the premises of the parking, but he did not give any satisfactory reply and called his owner/ contractor at the premises of the parking. The owner of the parking told the complainant that the vehicle in question has been stolen and also promised that he will trace the vehicle in question within a week. In this regard, police authorities were also informed. After one week, the complainant tried to meet the Opposite Party in this regard, but the Opposite Party never meet him nor attended his phone call. Thereafter, the complainant requested the contractor of the Opposite Party, but he did not bother rather made a threat to the complainant to face dire consequences in future, if he raise demand of his vehicle from them and told that he has link with the police officials. The complainant also approached the concerned police station and also moved applications to SSP, Moga as well as DGP, Punjab Chandigarh but to no effect. Hence this complaint is filed due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- Opposite Party be directed to give the custody/ possession of motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-38A-3458, Model No.2005, Chassis No.05BO9C14037, Engine No.05BO8M14303 or to pay Rs.50,000/- in the alternative on account of loss and damage caused to the complainant and further directing the Opposite Party to pay claim of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief to which this Hon’ble Forum deem fit be also granted.
2. Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable being false, self contradictory, frivolous, vague and baseless and is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the complainant never parked his vehicle in question at the parking stand of the Opposite Party and even the receipt in question does not belong to the Opposite Party and never issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant. The complainant is screwed person who just want to extort money from the Opposite Party and therefore, he has made up the false story of parking his vehicle at the parking stand of the Opposite Party and also made up false story of stolen his vehicle from the custody of the Opposite Party. Hence, when no such vehicle was parked in the parking stand of the Opposite Party, then the question of stolen of said vehicle from the custody of the Opposite Party does not arise at all. Moreover, false receipt has been affixed by the complainant which was not issued by the Opposite Party as alleged. On merits, the Opposite Party took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith affidavit Ex.C1, copy of his identify proof i.e. aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of receipt issued by the Opposite Party in lieu of the parking of motor cycle in question i.e. in token of security Ex.C3, copy of detailed letter dated 13.06.2018 Ex.C4 written to Ld.Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh to take appropriate action against the park owner i.e. Opposite Party, copy of another letter dated 28.05.2018 Ex.C5 wrote to Ld.Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga in this regard. Copy of letter dated 28.05.2018 Ex.C6 wrote to SHO, Police Station, City, Moga, copy of registration certificate Ex.C7 showing the detail description of the motor cycle in question.
4. On the other hand, the Opposite Party also placed on record affidavit of Sunil Joel @ Bhola Ex.OP1 in support of their case.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments of the Complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 20.05.2018 at about 9.00 AM, he parked his vehicle/ motor cycle at the parking, Near Bus Stand, G.T.Road, Moga and the contractor/ employee of Parking gave a receipt bearing No.3458 dated 20.05.2018. The complainant alleges that at about 5.00 PM when he returned back and visited the parking place to get his vehicle, he could not find out his vehicle and thereafter, he asked the employee present in the premises of the parking, but he did not give any satisfactory reply and called his owner/ contractor at the premises of the parking. The owner of the parking told the complainant that the vehicle in question has been stolen and also promised that he will trace the vehicle in question within a week. In this regard, police authorities were also informed. After one week, the complainant tried to meet the Opposite Party in this regard, but the Opposite Party never meet him nor attended his phone call. Thereafter, the complainant requested the contractor of the Opposite Party, but he did not bother rather made a threat to the complainant to face dire consequences in future, if he raise demand of his vehicle from them and told that he has link with the police officials. The complainant also approached the concerned police station and also moved applications to SSP, Moga as well as DGP, Punjab Chandigarh but to no effect and hence, the deficiency is alleged on the part of the Opposite Party. To support the aforesaid contention, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of his identify proof i.e. aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of receipt dated 20.5 allegedly issued by the Opposite Party in lieu of the parking of motor cycle in question i.e. in token of security, copy of detailed letter dated 13.06.2018 Ex.C4 written to Ld.Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh to take appropriate action against the park owner i.e. Opposite Party, copy of another letter dated 28.05.2018 Ex.C5 wrote to Ld.Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga in this regard. Copy of letter dated 28.05.2018 Ex.C6 wrote to SHO, Police Station, City, Moga, copy of registration certificate Ex.C7 showing the detail description of the motor cycle in question.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the simple ground and denial that the complainant never parked his vehicle in question at the parking stand of the Opposite Party and even the receipt in question does not belong to the Opposite Party and never issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant. It is however blamed that the complainant is screwed person who just want to extort money from the Opposite Party and he has made up the false story of parking his vehicle at the parking stand of the Opposite Party and also made up false story of stolen his vehicle from the custody of the Opposite Party. Hence, when no such vehicle was parked in the parking stand of the Opposite Party, then the question of stolen of said vehicle from the custody of the Opposite Party does not arise at all. Moreover, false receipt has been affixed by the complainant which was not issued by the Opposite Party as alleged. When no such vehicle was parked at the stand of the Opposite Party , then the question of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party does not arise. But however, to rebut the aforesaid documents produced by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence. We do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.
8. It is not the denial that the Complainant is owner of motor cycle bearing Registration Certificate No.PB-38A-3458, Model No.2005, Chassis Number 05BO9C14037, Engine No.05BO8M14303, copy of the RC is placed on record as Ex.C7. But on the other hand, the Opposite Party has specifically denied the parking of the aforesaid motor cycle in their parking stand, simply saying that the Complainant never parked the motor cycle in question in their parking stand. On the other hand, the Complainant has placed on record the copy of parking slip dated 20.5.2018 in which the Opposite Party has specifically mentioned the number of motor cycle in question as 3458, however, during his course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has contended that the Opposite Party has mentioned it as the receipt No.3458 as this number is registration number of motor cycle in question. The Opposite Party can not deny the aforesaid factum of parking of the motor cycle in question simply saying that the Complainant never parked his vehicle in their parking stand. Further, to prove such assertion, the Opposite Party could produce any evidence on record showing the parking slip record of that date, but they have failed to do so, because the Opposite Party must have kept the daily record of parking vehicle and daily income from the parking stand. Obviously, the Opposite Party must have taken the contract of parking stand in Bus Stand, Moga through District Administration/ Deputy Commissioner, Moga and to run such big business the Opposite Party is required to keep its accounts maintained through some competent Chartered Accountant, but the Opposite Party has failed to prove their assertion by filing an cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the vehicle in question was never parked in the parking stand of the Opposite Party and the receipt in question is not issued by them. Hence, viewing the complaint in hand from all corners, we are of the view that the stand taken by the Opposite Party is not correct and to hide the record of the parking stand, they had not produced their record before this Forum. When the Complainant has proved the receipt of parking which is Ex.C3 on the record, then the Complainant has discharged his onus of proving that he parked the vehicle in question in the parking stand of the Opposite Party and now the onus of proof is shifted on the Opposite Party because the fact of parking of vehicle in question, is within the knowledge of the Opposite Party which the Opposite Party could easily discharge by producing the record daily audited by the competent authority that the vehicle in question is not parked there on that day, but the Opposite Party has miserably failed to do so. Hence, the Opposite Party has failed to disprove that vehicle in question was not parked there. However, the Complainant has proved it by producing on record the receipt of parking Ex.C3. It not only proves parking of vehicle in question at parking stand of the Opposite Party, but also proves Unfair Trade Practice conducted by the Opposite Party by not issuing proper receipt which does not bear the proper name, style, stamp, signature and address of the Opposite Party. Such Unfair Trade Practice needs to be discontinued. Hence, under section 14 (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Opposite Party is directed not to issue such type of improper receipts, but to issue proper receipts mentioning proper name, style, stamp, signature and address of the Opposite Party. Hence, by not issuing proper receipts, the Opposite Party not only avoiding to pay taxes, but also causing loss to the exchequers of State Government and Centre Government, to which they are bound to pay by way of GST. Section 14 (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is reproduced as under:-
14. Finding of the District Forum:- (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the Opposite Party directing him to do one or more of the following things namely:-
(f) to discontinue the Unfair Trade Practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat them.
Further, if the motor cycle of the Complainant was not stolen, then the Complainant need not to write so many letters to the police authority to trace the vehicle in question and he need not to file the instant complaint by hiring an advocate by spending money and by spending precious time. However, the Complainant has failed to produce any copy of insurance, if any, of the vehicle in question, to assess the value of the vehicle on the date of theft. But however, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is certainly ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ on the part of the Opposite Party by not issuing genuine receipt regarding parking of the vehicle and thereafter not keeping the vehicle of the customer in safe custody and for that the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant.
9. Now come to the quantum of compensation. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was having 2005 model and as such, it was 14 years old and present approximate value of the vehicle in question is to be considered at Rs.13,000/- and as such, we pass the order accordingly.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.13,000/- (Thirteen thousands only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.12.07.2018 till its realization, for conducting Unfair Trade Practice and causing harassment to the Complainant. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Forum since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Forum is doing additional duty at District Consumer Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib and Administration Duty at District Consumer Forum, Sangrur. There are only two working days in a week when the quorum of this Forum remains complete.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 13.06.2019.
(Parampal Kaur) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member President
