BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2016
Date of Institution: 5.1.2016
Date of Decision: 15.6.2016
Paramjit Kaur wife of Daljit Singh Sandhu, resident of 59-B, Sandhu Colony, Chheharta Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- G.N.Crain Service through its Manager Dilbagh,Amritsar c/o S.P. Traffic Amritsar
- Traffic Incharge, PS Rambagh, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Parshotam Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh.V.K.Sehgal,Advocate
For Opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Paramjit Kaur, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that on 2.6.2015 complainant alongwith her family went to market . Since there was rush in the market , as such complainant parked her vehicle outside mattaled road beyond the white line. Opposite party No.1 is the contractor of opposite party No.2 as it was assigned the duty of lifting the vehicles parked unauthorizedly on the road . Despite the fact that the vehicle of the complainant has not been parked unauthorizedly , opposite party No.1 at the instance of opposite party No.2 lifted the vehicle without proper care and caution as a result of which front and rear body (bumper) of the vehicle was damaged. The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 17247/-. Photographs showing the damaged parts of the vehicle alongwith estimate are attached. Thereafter the complainant was challaned by opposite party No.2 and the complainant has fulfilled the requirements of the challan in all respects. The opposite parties are indulging in unfair trade practice and were deficient in service. The complainant has suffered a financial loss, mental pain, agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant has sought the following relief vide instant complaint :-
i) Direction be issued to opposite parties to pay the amount of damage caused to the vehicle alongwith interest till payment
ii) To pay compensation of Rs. 11000/-.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint while opposite party No.2 did not opt to appear and contest the same, as such opposite party No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In its written version, opposite party No.1 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint was not maintainable because there exist no consumer dispute inter-se parties under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party No.2 was performing its statutory official duties as Traffic Controller to control traffic on road. The complainant has parked her vehicle on road outside the white line beyond the permissible area of parking. On witnessing the vehicle of the complainant parked on the road, causing hindrance in the traffic, the staff of the opposite party No.1 made announcement on loud speaker with the help of mike to the effect that the said vehicle is parked wrongly on the road and called the owner of the vehicle to remove the vehicle from road. When despite waiting for 3 minutes none came forward, another announcement was made to the effect that the vehicle is being toed . Even then the complainant did not turn up. Then after toeing the vehicle third announcement was made to the effect and the vehicle was taken to the parking place ; that there is no cause of action against the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 had performed its contractual duty under instructions of opposite party No.2 to clear the blockage of traffic on road ; that complaint is otherwise false and frivolous and without any cause of action. At the time of receiving delivery of the vehicle from the opposite parties after payment of challan fee, no damage to the vehicle was reported at the spot by the complainant and the delivery of the vehicle was taken in good condition ; that no question of providing any service to the complainant is involved in the matter. As such there does not arise any cause for use of unfair trade practice. On merits , facts narrated in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. To bid her case complainant tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of estimate Ex.C-2, copy of motor vehicle offence compounding seizure slip issued by Motor Vehicle Department Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 2.6.2015 Ex.C-4, photographs Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6 and closed her evidence.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Dilbagh Singh Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence .
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant .
7. From the perusal of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, it becomes evident that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider inter-se parties. As per definition given in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, goods or services must be purchased or hired by a person from another & that too for valuable consideration. There are no pleadings to the effect in the complaint that there exists relationship of consumer and service provider inter-se parties. It is the case of the complainant that she had parked her vehicle beyond white line alongside the road. Whereas it is the case of opposite party No.1 that the car was parked in the area where parking was not permissible. Affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 on that point that car was parked at proper place stands rebutted by the opposite party through Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Dilbagh Singh. It shall have to be presumed that vehicle of the complainant was lying parked in the prohibited area. Opposite party No.1 is a contractor under opposite party No.2 and has performed his contractual obligation. The allegation that the car, when returned on disposal of the challan , was damaged or that the complainant had to suffer a loss of Rs. 17,247/-, is not tenable because no complaint to that effect was lodged by the complainant immediately with the civil or police authorities nor any protest was lodged with the authorities concerned when the car was restored to her. Moreover, as there is no relationship of consumer cum service provider inter-se parties, the complaint as framed is not maintainable. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 15.6.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
