IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of October, 2017
Filed on 13.06.2017
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.157/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. P.S.Sylakumar District Mission Co-ordinator
Mappilaparambu Kudumbasree
Sanathanapuram.P.O Valiyakulam Junction
Kalarkode- Alappuzha Thiruvambadi
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case precisely as follows:-
The complainant is a senior superintendent in social justice department, and currently working as a laiso office High Court. The complainant while going to work used to part his motor bike in the pay & park area run by the opposite party near railway station. In the same manner on 1st June 2017 around 7pm the complainant parked his vehicle thereof and went for his work after paying the amount prescribed for the same. In the evening when the complainant got back, and went over there for fetching his vehicle he found that the vehicle was lost. He intimated the matter to the custodians of the pay & part area, and as instructed by them he informed the loss of the vehicle to the South Police station, Alappuzha. The opposite party workers impressed upon the complainant that the vehicle could have been taken away by someone possibly by mistake, and asked the complainant to wait for a day or two. However the complainant on 2nd June lodged complaint before the South Police station, Alappuzha all of which yielded no results. Though the complainant gave complainant to the Railway Protection Force, they were not prepared to accept the same on citing the reason that the parking area is under the jurisdiction of the local police. There are a number of parking areas other than the one run by opposite party which fetches lesser charge. Despite this complainant availed the service of opposite party on higher cost for the purpose of keeping the vehicle safer custody. The opposite party received the charge as well for keeping the vehicle safe in custody thereof from the complainant. The opposite party is liable to keep complainant’s vehicle safe and in their custody till the same is handed over to the complainant. The opposite party has committed deficiency of service, the complainant contends. The complainant get aggrieved on this approach this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not locked the handle, and also the area is under the control of the Railway Protection Force. According to the opposite party as per the agreement eith the railway, they are getting only a portion of the parking fee. That apart the opposite party is not responsible for the safety and protection of the vehicle. The safety of the vehicle is vested with the concerned owners of the vehicle.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 were marked. The opposite party was not keen on adducing any evidence.
4. Taking into account the complainant’s contention the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant parked the vehicle with the safe custody of the
opposite party?
( b) Whether the opposite party is oblige to keep the vehicle safe until the
same is handed over to the complainant?
© Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously went through the complaint and the materials place on record before us by the complainant. Concededly the complainant has parked his vehicle with the opposite party on paying the charge for the same. On the material day when the complainant got back from his work, and moved over there for taking his motor bike the same was not there. According to the opposite party the vehicle could have been mistakenly taken by someone else holding the same as their own. However later it was turned out that their vehicle was lost. According to the opposite party, the opposite party is not responsible for the loss of the vehicle. The safety and protection of the vehicle vest with the concerned owner of the vehicle. With these contentions of both the parties we went through the materials carefully over again. It is neither denied nor did dispute that the vehicle had been parked in the custody of the opposite party. It is also admitted that the opposite party has received the parking fee from the complainant. In this context elaborate contemplation or extraordinary intellect is not necessary to understand that it is the responsibility of the opposite party to keep the vehicle safe and sound and the same has to be handed over to its owner intact. In the context of the complainant’s convincing case and in the premise of the opposite party not seriously challenging the same, we are of the strong view that the complainant’s case stands well established and merit acceptance. It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is deficient. We need hardly say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation. The opposite party shall comply the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2017.
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Insurance certificate
Ext.A3 - Copy of the receipt
Ext.A4 - Copy of the complaint
Ext.A5 - Copy of License.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
