BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No: 382/2001 Filed on 25..09..2001

Dated: 30..05..2009

Complainants:

1. N. Radhakrishnan, TC 18/453-1, Karthika, Elanjimoodu Lane, Kochar Road, Edappazhanji, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Capt. G. Sanjay, Jaya Bhavan, Chettikulangara, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Divisional Railway Officer, Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Sri. V.K. Anil Kumar)

2. Jessy, Pattapurayidam House, Perumkuzhy, Chirayinkil (Contractor, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram).

(By Adv. A. Sampath)

 

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 06..04..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..05..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

Facts in this case, stated briefly are as follows: The 1^st complainant is the registered owner of a black coloured Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-A-9305, that the 2^nd complainant is the nephew of 1^st complainant and had been using the said vehicle of the 1^st complainant whenever he was in Thiruvananthapuram on leave. The 2^nd complainant had taken the said vehicle to the Trivandrum Central Railway Station on 20/8/2000 at about 4.30 AM and had parked the said vehicle in the said registered parking area and had entrusted the said vehicle to the opposite parties. The requisite fee was paid and a token, bearing No.2008 evidencing the entrustment was given to the 2^nd complainant, that the 2^nd complainant was not given back the vehicle even after the said receipt was presented. The plea for not returning the said vehicle was that the said vehicle was missing from the said parking area. The 2^nd complainant had made complaints about the missing of the said vehicle before various authorities including the Police. An FIR was also lodged before the Railway Police Station, Thampanoor, that the said vehicle has not been traced till date, and that the said vehicle was entrusted under the custody and responsibility of the opposite parties and the opposite parties were bound to ensure the safety and security of the said vehicle so entrusted to them and to ensure that the said vehicle was returned when demanded. The loss of the vehicle was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint has been necessitated claiming refund of the value of the missing vehicle along with compensation and costs.

2. The 1^st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about the parking of the vehicle and the alleged theft of the motor cycle, that the 2^nd opposite party was the licensee of the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party was responsible for managing the parking area, and that there was no privity of contract between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant, that under the terms of the licence the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the licensee. The parking charges were collected by the licensee and the responsibility for the loss, if any was that of the licensee. The motor cycle was not entrusted to the 1^st opposite party as such no charge was collected by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is not at all responsible for the loss and the value of the said vehicle. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs from this opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party.

3. The 2^nd opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: It is true that the 2^nd opposite party is the licensee of the 1^st opposite party. The licence is only for collecting the parking charge from the vehicles which are parked within the premises of the 1^st opposite party by allotting the parking area, that the 2^nd opposite party is the licensee to allow the parking stand to the vehicle parking in the prescribed area by charging Rs.2/- as parking fee. It does not mean that they are the safe custodians of the vehicle parked in the said parking area, that there was no information from the part of the complainants about the alleged missing of the vehicle. As the licensee of the said parking stand the 2^nd opposite party has always taken maximum care, security and safety to the vehicles parked inside the parking stand. Since the opposite parties are not the safe custodians of the vehicle parked in the said parking stand, they are not liable to pay compensation for the alleged missing of the vehicle, that there is no negligence or want of care has happened from the part of the 2^nd opposite party. While parking the vehicles on the parking stand the opposite parties issue a "Vehicle parking receipt", in that receipt it is specifically stated "Park vehicles at your own risk only". At the time of parking the vehicles, the vehicles are not entrusted to the opposite parties. Rs.2/- collected is only a licence fee for a fixed hour parking. There is no contract between the opposite parties and the persons who use the parking stand. The parking fee is only to use the parking stand and not for the safe custody. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P11. On behalf of the 1^st opposite party Ext.D1 has been marked. The 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and no documents were produced on their behalf.

5. The following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in this complaint?

6. Points (i) & (ii) : The allegations in the complaint is that the vehicle parked in the parking area provided by the opposite parties were not given back even after the production of the receipt issued by the opposite parties as the vehicle was missing from the said parking area. As per the version of 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party was the licensee of the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party was responsible for managing the parking area and as per the terms and conditions of the licence, the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for the negligence, if any, on the part of the licensee. In the version of the 2^nd opposite party it has been contended that they are not the safe custodians of the vehicles parked in the said parking stand and at the time of parking the vehicles, Rs.2/- is collected only as a licence fee for a fixed hour parking and in the vehicle parking receipt, it is specifically stated that 'Park vehicles at your own risk only' and they are not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged missing of the vehicle.

7. The 1^st opposite party has contended that there was no information from the part of the complainants about the alleged missing of the vehicle. Ext.P4, the First Information Report, reveals that the loss of the vehicle in dispute from Thampanoor Railway Station parking area has been informed to the Police on 22/8/2000. Ext.P4 has not been challenged by any opposite parties. In such a circumstance, there is no iota of doubt with regard to the missing of the vehicle from the Railway Station parking area. Ext.P3 bears the number of the vehicle mentioned in this complaint. As per Ext.P3, Rs.2/- has been collected and it has been mentioned that 'Not transferable. Valid only for one entry. Park vehicles at your own risk only. It be surrendered while going out'. This has been seen mentioned by the contractor (TVC) while the vehicle parking fee receipt is that of Southern Railway, Trivandrum Central. At this juncture, the aspect for consideration is whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of vehicle and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. As per Ext.D1 terms of the licence between the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, clause 7 reiterates that "The licensee/licensees shall have an insurance for Cycle/Scootter/Motor Cycle etc.against loss, theft or damages etc., due to theft fire and other accidents. Licensee/Licensees shall pay the premium thereon regularly to Insurance Company and submit receipt to the Railway administration along with the Xerox copy of such insurance policy premium receipt for verification. Licensee/Licensees will make good the losses due to theft, fire, damage etc.to the owners of the vehicles. Licensee/Licensees will get the insurance policy renewed from time to time during the contract period". Ext.D1 is an agreement made between both the opposite parties and bears their signatures also. Accordingly it has been admitted by both the opposite parties that, the licensee will make good the losses due to theft, fire, damage etc to the owners of the vehicles. As per Ext.P3, there is no mentioning with regard to the same and it is not printed in the parking slip either. Moreover the contention of the 1^st opposite party has no force as the same has neither been displayed anywhere in the parking area provided by the Railways nor has been brought to the knowledge of the consumers like the complainants. When a consumer goes to park his vehicle in the parking area provided by the Railways, he is justified in placing confidence in Railways.

9. The 2^nd opposite party has contended that the fee collected is only a licence fee for a fixed hour parking and they are not liable to pay compensation as it has been mentioned that "Park vehicle at your own risk only". It is futile to contend that the vehicle is parked at the risk of the owner, when the 2^nd opposite party has received parking charges and taken custody of the motor cycle. The position of the opposite parties is that of a bailee and it is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to them. In the ruling produced by the learned counsel for the complainant in M/s. Mahesh Enterprises Vs. Arun Kumar Gumber and Oths, reported in 2001 NCJ (NC) 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble National

Commission that " We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective pleas of the parties. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission was legally right in holding that the facts and the circumstances would constitute bailment and the person responsible for the management of the parking area was liable to make good the loss. The findings recorded by the State Commission are legally correct and call for no interference. The State Commission has also rightly interpreted Clause (9) of the Licence Agreement between the Airport Authority and the Mahesh Enterprises and recorded the following finding:

"The entire management of running the parking area has been handed over under the agreement by the Airport Authority to the Licensee on the terms and conditions appearing in the Agreement. The Licensee had assumed responsibility for the safety of the vehicles which were parked on payment of prescribed charges. Even if the Airport Authority is made to satisfy the claim, they would be entitled to recover the same from the Licensee by virtue of Clause (9) of the Licence Agreement, reproduced as above. This would lead to multiplicity of proceedings which is against public policy. We are, therefore, of the view that the Airport Authority was not liable to satisfy the claim. Finding to the contrary in the impugned order is, therefore, set aside".

10. In view of the above ruling and in the light of the discussions referred above, we find that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant and the 1^st opposite party is exempted from satisfying the claim of the complainant.

11. The next important aspect is with regard to the amount to be paid by the 2^nd opposite party. There is no record produced by the complainant to show that the stolen vehicle was insured. The motor cycle in dispute was lost after a period of almost nine years. The vehicle was in use during the said period. As per Ext.P2, which is seen issued to one Geetha Gopakumar and which has not been challenged by the opposite parties, the price of the vehicle is Rs.26,700/-. Anyhow it is not in the name of the complainants. Anyhow, it is beyond any doubt that the vehicle was being used for such a long period of 9 years. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission referred Supra and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the price of the motor cycle after deduction on account of depreciation would be Rs.4,000/- on the date of loss. The complainant is further found entitled for an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2^nd opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) towards price of the motor cyle along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and costs Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as against the 1^st opposite party.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30^th day of May, 2009.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

O.P.No.382/2001

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness: NIL

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Copy of certificate of Registration of motor vehicles with Reg.No.KL-01 A- 9305

P2 : Copy of receipt No.01837 dt. 26/6/91 for Rs.26,700/-.

P3 : Copy of vehicle parking fee receipt No.2008 dt. 20/8 of vehicle No.KL-01 A-9305

P4 : Copy of FIR lodged before the Railway Police dt. 22/8/00 by the 2^nd complainant.

P5 : Copy of advocate notice dt. 18/9/2000

P6 : Postal receipt No.2074

P7 : Postal acknowledgment card dt. 23/9

P8 : Copy of legal notice dt. 14/5/2001 issued to opp. Party.

P9 : Postal acknowledgment card

P10 : Postal receipt dt. 15/5/2001

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : copy of agreement deed dt. 24/8/1997.

PRESIDENT

ad.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No: 382/2001 Filed on 25..09..2001

Dated: 30..05..2009

Complainants:

1. N. Radhakrishnan, TC 18/453-1, Karthika, Elanjimoodu Lane, Kochar Road, Edappazhanji, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Capt. G. Sanjay, Jaya Bhavan, Chettikulangara, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Divisional Railway Officer, Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Sri. V.K. Anil Kumar)

2. Jessy, Pattapurayidam House, Perumkuzhy, Chirayinkil (Contractor, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram).

(By Adv. A. Sampath)

 

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 06..04..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..05..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

Facts in this case, stated briefly are as follows: The 1^st complainant is the registered owner of a black coloured Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-A-9305, that the 2^nd complainant is the nephew of 1^st complainant and had been using the said vehicle of the 1^st complainant whenever he was in Thiruvananthapuram on leave. The 2^nd complainant had taken the said vehicle to the Trivandrum Central Railway Station on 20/8/2000 at about 4.30 AM and had parked the said vehicle in the said registered parking area and had entrusted the said vehicle to the opposite parties. The requisite fee was paid and a token, bearing No.2008 evidencing the entrustment was given to the 2^nd complainant, that the 2^nd complainant was not given back the vehicle even after the said receipt was presented. The plea for not returning the said vehicle was that the said vehicle was missing from the said parking area. The 2^nd complainant had made complaints about the missing of the said vehicle before various authorities including the Police. An FIR was also lodged before the Railway Police Station, Thampanoor, that the said vehicle has not been traced till date, and that the said vehicle was entrusted under the custody and responsibility of the opposite parties and the opposite parties were bound to ensure the safety and security of the said vehicle so entrusted to them and to ensure that the said vehicle was returned when demanded. The loss of the vehicle was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint has been necessitated claiming refund of the value of the missing vehicle along with compensation and costs.

2. The 1^st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about the parking of the vehicle and the alleged theft of the motor cycle, that the 2^nd opposite party was the licensee of the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party was responsible for managing the parking area, and that there was no privity of contract between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant, that under the terms of the licence the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the licensee. The parking charges were collected by the licensee and the responsibility for the loss, if any was that of the licensee. The motor cycle was not entrusted to the 1^st opposite party as such no charge was collected by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is not at all responsible for the loss and the value of the said vehicle. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs from this opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party.

3. The 2^nd opposite party has filed their detailed version contending as follows: It is true that the 2^nd opposite party is the licensee of the 1^st opposite party. The licence is only for collecting the parking charge from the vehicles which are parked within the premises of the 1^st opposite party by allotting the parking area, that the 2^nd opposite party is the licensee to allow the parking stand to the vehicle parking in the prescribed area by charging Rs.2/- as parking fee. It does not mean that they are the safe custodians of the vehicle parked in the said parking area, that there was no information from the part of the complainants about the alleged missing of the vehicle. As the licensee of the said parking stand the 2^nd opposite party has always taken maximum care, security and safety to the vehicles parked inside the parking stand. Since the opposite parties are not the safe custodians of the vehicle parked in the said parking stand, they are not liable to pay compensation for the alleged missing of the vehicle, that there is no negligence or want of care has happened from the part of the 2^nd opposite party. While parking the vehicles on the parking stand the opposite parties issue a "Vehicle parking receipt", in that receipt it is specifically stated "Park vehicles at your own risk only". At the time of parking the vehicles, the vehicles are not entrusted to the opposite parties. Rs.2/- collected is only a licence fee for a fixed hour parking. There is no contract between the opposite parties and the persons who use the parking stand. The parking fee is only to use the parking stand and not for the safe custody. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P11. On behalf of the 1^st opposite party Ext.D1 has been marked. The 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and no documents were produced on their behalf.

5. The following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in this complaint?

6. Points (i) & (ii) : The allegations in the complaint is that the vehicle parked in the parking area provided by the opposite parties were not given back even after the production of the receipt issued by the opposite parties as the vehicle was missing from the said parking area. As per the version of 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party was the licensee of the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party was responsible for managing the parking area and as per the terms and conditions of the licence, the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for the negligence, if any, on the part of the licensee. In the version of the 2^nd opposite party it has been contended that they are not the safe custodians of the vehicles parked in the said parking stand and at the time of parking the vehicles, Rs.2/- is collected only as a licence fee for a fixed hour parking and in the vehicle parking receipt, it is specifically stated that 'Park vehicles at your own risk only' and they are not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged missing of the vehicle.

7. The 1^st opposite party has contended that there was no information from the part of the complainants about the alleged missing of the vehicle. Ext.P4, the First Information Report, reveals that the loss of the vehicle in dispute from Thampanoor Railway Station parking area has been informed to the Police on 22/8/2000. Ext.P4 has not been challenged by any opposite parties. In such a circumstance, there is no iota of doubt with regard to the missing of the vehicle from the Railway Station parking area. Ext.P3 bears the number of the vehicle mentioned in this complaint. As per Ext.P3, Rs.2/- has been collected and it has been mentioned that 'Not transferable. Valid only for one entry. Park vehicles at your own risk only. It be surrendered while going out'. This has been seen mentioned by the contractor (TVC) while the vehicle parking fee receipt is that of Southern Railway, Trivandrum Central. At this juncture, the aspect for consideration is whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of vehicle and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. As per Ext.D1 terms of the licence between the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, clause 7 reiterates that "The licensee/licensees shall have an insurance for Cycle/Scootter/Motor Cycle etc.against loss, theft or damages etc., due to theft fire and other accidents. Licensee/Licensees shall pay the premium thereon regularly to Insurance Company and submit receipt to the Railway administration along with the Xerox copy of such insurance policy premium receipt for verification. Licensee/Licensees will make good the losses due to theft, fire, damage etc.to the owners of the vehicles. Licensee/Licensees will get the insurance policy renewed from time to time during the contract period". Ext.D1 is an agreement made between both the opposite parties and bears their signatures also. Accordingly it has been admitted by both the opposite parties that, the licensee will make good the losses due to theft, fire, damage etc to the owners of the vehicles. As per Ext.P3, there is no mentioning with regard to the same and it is not printed in the parking slip either. Moreover the contention of the 1^st opposite party has no force as the same has neither been displayed anywhere in the parking area provided by the Railways nor has been brought to the knowledge of the consumers like the complainants. When a consumer goes to park his vehicle in the parking area provided by the Railways, he is justified in placing confidence in Railways.

9. The 2^nd opposite party has contended that the fee collected is only a licence fee for a fixed hour parking and they are not liable to pay compensation as it has been mentioned that "Park vehicle at your own risk only". It is futile to contend that the vehicle is parked at the risk of the owner, when the 2^nd opposite party has received parking charges and taken custody of the motor cycle. The position of the opposite parties is that of a bailee and it is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to them. In the ruling produced by the learned counsel for the complainant in M/s. Mahesh Enterprises Vs. Arun Kumar Gumber and Oths, reported in 2001 NCJ (NC) 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble National

Commission that " We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective pleas of the parties. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission was legally right in holding that the facts and the circumstances would constitute bailment and the person responsible for the management of the parking area was liable to make good the loss. The findings recorded by the State Commission are legally correct and call for no interference. The State Commission has also rightly interpreted Clause (9) of the Licence Agreement between the Airport Authority and the Mahesh Enterprises and recorded the following finding:

"The entire management of running the parking area has been handed over under the agreement by the Airport Authority to the Licensee on the terms and conditions appearing in the Agreement. The Licensee had assumed responsibility for the safety of the vehicles which were parked on payment of prescribed charges. Even if the Airport Authority is made to satisfy the claim, they would be entitled to recover the same from the Licensee by virtue of Clause (9) of the Licence Agreement, reproduced as above. This would lead to multiplicity of proceedings which is against public policy. We are, therefore, of the view that the Airport Authority was not liable to satisfy the claim. Finding to the contrary in the impugned order is, therefore, set aside".

10. In view of the above ruling and in the light of the discussions referred above, we find that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant and the 1^st opposite party is exempted from satisfying the claim of the complainant.

11. The next important aspect is with regard to the amount to be paid by the 2^nd opposite party. There is no record produced by the complainant to show that the stolen vehicle was insured. The motor cycle in dispute was lost after a period of almost nine years. The vehicle was in use during the said period. As per Ext.P2, which is seen issued to one Geetha Gopakumar and which has not been challenged by the opposite parties, the price of the vehicle is Rs.26,700/-. Anyhow it is not in the name of the complainants. Anyhow, it is beyond any doubt that the vehicle was being used for such a long period of 9 years. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission referred Supra and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the price of the motor cycle after deduction on account of depreciation would be Rs.4,000/- on the date of loss. The complainant is further found entitled for an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2^nd opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) towards price of the motor cyle along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and costs Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as against the 1^st opposite party.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30^th day of May, 2009.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

O.P.No.382/2001

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness: NIL

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Copy of certificate of Registration of motor vehicles with Reg.No.KL-01 A- 9305

P2 : Copy of receipt No.01837 dt. 26/6/91 for Rs.26,700/-.

P3 : Copy of vehicle parking fee receipt No.2008 dt. 20/8 of vehicle No.KL-01 A-9305

P4 : Copy of FIR lodged before the Railway Police dt. 22/8/00 by the 2^nd complainant.

P5 : Copy of advocate notice dt. 18/9/2000

P6 : Postal receipt No.2074

P7 : Postal acknowledgment card dt. 23/9

P8 : Copy of legal notice dt. 14/5/2001 issued to opp. Party.

P9 : Postal acknowledgment card

P10 : Postal receipt dt. 15/5/2001

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : copy of agreement deed dt. 24/8/1997.

PRESIDENT