DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Jai Bhagwan Sharma s/o Late Sh. H.P. Sharma, R/o H.No. 1448, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

(1)  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, through its Director, PGI Chandigarh.

(2)  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, through Estate Officer, PGI Chandigarh.

(3)  Shri Vimal Chauhan s/o Jagdish Singh, Contractor PGI Parking, presently R/o H.No.9, Khuda Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

            Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

            Sh. J.P. Rana, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant was the owner of Maruti 800 car bearing Regn. No. CH-01-S-0188. The Opposite Party No.3 had been entrusted the work of parking in PGI for staff as well as visitors as per Agreement between the OPs No.1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.3. Parking of officials of PGI was free of cost as the staff was not required to pay any parking fee. The Complainant has stated that even though staff was not required to pay the parking fee the Contractor was under an obligation to keep watch over the staff vehicles for which he issued separate receipts to the concerned staff member in token of the vehicle being parked under his supervision.   

          The Complainant at the relevant time was working as Junior Store Officer in PGI and used to park his car in the parking area managed by the Opposite Party No.3. On 21.6.2010 when the Complainant returned from office after completing his work at 05.15 PM to the parking area, he was surprised to find his car missing. The Complainant accordingly questioned the Contractor and when no positive response was received, he made a detailed representation to the Chief Security Officer of PGI, Chandigarh but no satisfactory action was taken. The Complainant accordingly lodged an F.I.R. with the Police (Annexure C-3).

          Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for payment of suitable compensation by the Opposite Parties as also costs of mental tension, harassment and costs of litigation.

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.  

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed their joint reply. They have taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable in any form as all allegations have been made regarding deficiency in service against the Opposite Party No.3 only. The Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ because as per his own averment no consideration was paid by him to the Opposite Party No. 3 for parking of the vehicle. 

          On merits, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have admitted the allotment of license of parking on charging annual license fee to Opposite Party No.3 on 17.11.2009. The contentions of the Complainant about giving the complaint to the Chief Security Officer of the answering Opposite Parties have been admitted. This complaint was duly forwarded to the Parking Contractor.

          Answering Opposite Parties have further averred that the Complainant had written to them on 10.09.2010 that since he had received the claim from the insurance company further investigation in this case may be closed. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have also contested that merely awarding contract to Opposite Party No.3 for managing the parking area, the Complainant does not become a consumer of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Further, the Complainant is not an employee of the answering Opposite Parties and hence not covered with the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

4.          Opposite Party No.3 in his reply has taken the preliminary objection that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3 therefore the complaint is not maintainable. Admittedly, the services were availed by the Complainant without paying any consideration to the answering Opposite Party therefore, the Complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          On merits, Opposite Party No.3 has admitted that the vehicle of the Complainant was missing. The averment of the Complainant about the Opposite Party No.3 being under an obligation to keep watch over the staff vehicles has been denied. The slip issued by the Opposite Party No.3 is only with an objective to identify the staff cars in lieu of which no fees was ever charged from the Complainant. The receipt enclosed with the complaint does not contain the signatures of the Contractor or any of the office bearer on his behalf. Other submissions made by the Complainant do not relate to Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 has therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.          The Complainant has filed separate rejoinders to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant has alleged that he has filed a composite complaint against all Opposite Parties for their negligence and deficient services and therefore there is a valid cause of action in his favour. He is a beneficiary of the agreement between the Opposite Parties as per Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence he is a ‘Consumer’. He has alleged that the entire incident regarding theft of the vehicle was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties but they did not take any action at the relevant point of time. Hence according to the Complainant, Opposite Parties are jointly liable for rendering deficient and negligent services. The Complainant has further averred that he had received documents under the RTI Act, which clearly states that as per Clause 14 of the Agreement, parking rates are only for visitors and as per Clause 15 no parking fee will be charged from the PGI Staff. He has reiterated that he is a beneficiary of the agreement and thus a consumer of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has denied that he has received claim from the insurance company or that he has written to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to close the further investigation. Other submissions need no rejoinder and the prayer clause has been reiterated.     

6.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

7.          We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record.

8.          The allegations of the Complainant are with regard to alleged deficiency in service and negligent attitude of the Opposite Parties due to which his car has been stolen from the parking lot of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 which has been handed over to the Opposite Party No.3 by way of contract.

9.          The Complainant has alleged that being an employee of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 he was entitled to free parking at the premises and it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.3 to safeguard his vehicle and the loss of the vehicle entitles him to compensation from the Opposite Parties for negligence and deficiency in service.

10.        Opposite Parties in reply have contended that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ qua them under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-

(d) Consumer means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 1[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;

[Explanation: For the purposes of sub-clause (i), commercial purpose does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]

11.        The Complainant being an employee of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is not a consumer as he is the one who is providing services to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for which he is being paid. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are not providing any services to him. The facility of parking of vehicle for free has been extended to him as an employee of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 which is why he is not being charged by the Contractor (Opposite Party No.3). The facility accorded entitles the employee a privilege of free parking space in the parking area but in no way makes the employees a consumer of either the employer (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) or the Parking Contractor (Opposite Party No.3).

12.        Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have entered into a contract with the Opposite Party No.3 for parking space at the premises of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have allotted this space to Opposite Party No.3 on the basis of a tender invited, and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is earning revenue from the Opposite Party No.3 for the purpose. Accordingly, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 will also not be a consumer of Opposite Party No.3 as they are earning revenue from him. The facility of free parking provided by the Opposite Party No.3 to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and its employees is an adjustment/ concession between them for the comfort and benefit of employees of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. So to our mind, the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties and is thus not entitled to the relief prayed for.

13.        Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint, being devoid of any merit, with no order as to costs.

14.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

16^th July, 2013                            

   Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER