BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.<br /> C.C.5/06.<br /> Dated this the 25th day of March 2008.<br /> <br /> ( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)<br /> Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, B.A., LLB. : Member<br /> Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member<br /> <br /> N. Rameshan, }<br /> Development Officer )LIC), } Complainant<br /> “Sreenadam”, Thondayadu, }<br /> P.O. Nellikode, Calicut-16. }<br /> (Represented by Adv. L.S. Bhagaval Das)<br /> <br /> General Manager, }<br /> Hotel Fortune, } Opposite party<br /> Kannur Road, Calicut }<br /> ( Represented by Adv. O.K. Ismail)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By G. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he is working as a Development Officer in L.I.C. of India and he is a member of Port City Rotary Club at Calicut and Club members meeting on every Friday evening at 7.30 P.M. at the opposite party’s hotel. This has been in vogue for two years from the formation of the club and pursuant to which the club members and the hotel people were in good acquaintance with each other. On 4-3-05 he attended the meeting with his car namely Fiat Uno bearing No.KL 13-F-1617 and it was parked at the rear side parking area of the hotel as specifically directed and located by the security guard on duty. After meeting at about 10 P.M. complainant was about to take his car, he saw the right side portion of the car damaged considerably due to the impact of another vehicle. Immediately complainant looked at and enquired about the vehicle which had caused damage to his car and could not find any vehicle. Security guard of the opposite party was also not there. The complainant believes that another vehicle parked there when taken out negligently hit against the complainant’s car and caused damage. This was reported to the Manager of the opposite party and claimed for the damages, he supported by his club secretary, the complainant alleges that security staff were deficient in their duty. Otherwise they would have noticed the vehicle which caused damage. The complainant got reply from the Manager of the opposite party that they were not liable for the damage caused to the vehicle. The complainant sent a registered notice claiming compensation, opposite party replied for the notice stating that incident was not reported and in the log book kept by the hotel the vehicle number of the complainant is not found parked on 4-3-05. The parking of the vehicle of the complainant is witnessed by many people including Rotary club members. The garage people estimated an amount of Rs.7000/- for the repair works the complainant alleges negligence and deficiency of service against the opposite party and claims expense of Rs. 7312/- and for mental agony and reduction of market value of Rs.20000/-.<br /> <br /> The opposite party entered in appearance filed written version and disputes of liability. The opposite party states the incident alleged is not within the knowledge of him and hence denied. No complaint was lodged to the hotel management or to the police, parking of vehicle is free service. This is not only to customers but to others also. The cars parked in the hotel premises are at their own risk, “further parking at owner’s risk. Boards are kept at conspicuous places in the hotel compound. Opposite party has not charged any parking fee from the complainant. So the complainant is not a consumer he has not hired or availed any service or any consideration paid or promise. Security guard is giving free guidance to the drivers. If the alleged damage to the vehicles is true, compensation is to be claimed from the insurance company or by an application has to be filed <br /> before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunel, hence the complaint has to be dismissed. The opposite party claims compensation of Rs.10000/-.<br /> <br /> The only question has to be considered in this case whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> <br /> The complainant has produced two documents in support of their contentions. Since the opposite party denied the matters like ownership of the vehicle, damage caused to the vehicle, parking of the vehicle inside the hotel, the petitioner has got an obligation to produce such evidence. Now the only question remains the petitioner availed any service from the opposite party after making payments. No such proof was produced by the complainant. This Forum fails to find that he had availed any service from the opposite party. Regarding the occurrence of the damage also, no proof was produced. If so happened he could have lodged a complaint before the police. So also he could have opted other legal remedies in other Forums. Complaint is silent about this aspect. In such circumstances this Forum finds difficult to see that the complainant is a consumer and Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. <br /> <br /> In the result we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of March 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> //True copy //<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/By order)<br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. <br />