Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a vehicle from Respondent No. 4 on payment of due consideration through Finance under loan from O.P.No.6. He has also purchased the policy for the vehicle bearing Regn. No. OR-17F-1017 for the period 1.5.2008 to 30.4.2009. During the existence of the policy, the vehicle was damaged in an accident on 2.12.2008 and the complainant produced the vehicle in the workshop of O.P. No.3 for repair. The complainant took the vehicle from opposite party no.4 and got it repaired. The O.P.No.5 did not appoint the Surveyor for the damaged vehicle, as such the O.P.No.3 did not repair the vehicle but demanded Rs. 2500/- as parking charges from the complainant. The complainant brought clearance from the O.P.No. 5 for appointment of Surveyor and showed before O.P.No.4 and as such the complainant took the vehicle from O.P.No.3 to O.P.No.4 on 16.12.2008 for the purpose of repairing. Since there is delay in returning and paid parking fees without any reason, complaint is filed.
3. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“In the result, the complaint is allowed and ordered as follows:-
- The Opposite Party no.3 is directed to re fund to the Complainant Rs. 2500/- along with interest over the amount @9% per annum chargeable from 16.12.2008 till the date of payment. He shall pay to the Complainant Rs. 5000/- only as compensation.
- The Opposite Party no.4 is directed to pay a cost/compensation of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant.
- The Opposite Party No.5 is directed to make payment of the repair charges in respect of the insured vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-17-F-1017.
The above order shall be carried out by the Opposite Parties within thirty days hence failing which the amount under order shall carry 18% interest per annum till payment.
Complaint allowed accordingly.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have parked the vehicle and subsequently asked the complainant to pay Rs. 2500/- towards parking charges. According to him, vehicle has been parked for one and half months and thereby demanded charges. Learned District Forum ought to have consider such facts, on the other hand he has no fault and as such appeal should be allowed.
5. Considered the submissions of the parties. Perused the impugned order. In the written version of opposite party no.3, it has averred that there is no agreement between the complainant and opposite party no.3 to show that in the event of parking the vehicle, there will be parking charges to be collected. When there is no agreement and admittedly opposite party no.3 kept the vehicle awaiting appointment of Surveyor, the demand for parking charges is deficiency in services on the part of opposite party no.3.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that interest already computed at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.12.2008 and the same should be considered liberally.
7. We do find that the learned District Forum has directed to make refund but rest of impugned order is in higher side. In this process, while confirming the order against opposite party no.3, we hereby modify the order by directing opposite party no.3 to refund the amount of Rs.2500/- with interest @7% per annum from the date of the order. The rest of the direction to opposite party no.3 would remain unaltered.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of against the appellant only.
