Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/204

MANAGER, ST JOSEPH HIGH SCHOOL PUNNAPRA P.O - Complainant(s)

Versus

JACOB VARGHESE - Opp.Party(s)

VINOY VARGHESE

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.204/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 28/04/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.287/2012 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha dated, 28/02/2014)

 

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

 

Local Manager, St. Joseph High School,

Punnapra P.O., Alappuzha, Fr. Boni Sebastian.

 

(By Adv:  Vinoy Varghese)                    

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENTS:

 

1. Jacob Varghese, S/o. Varghese,

Venmelil Valiaparambu House,Chekkidikkadu P.O.,

Thakazhi Village, Alappuzha.

 

2. Secretary, St. Joseph High School,

Punnapra P.O., Alappuzha.

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

          1^st opposite party is the appellant who preferred this appeal against the impugned order in CC.No.287/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The Forum Below directed the 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/-.

          2.  It is the case of the complainant that on 13/07/2012 he parked his motor bike in opposite party’s school ground by paying fee of Rs.5/- towards parking fee and a receipt was issued to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant went to IMF Retreat Centre for night prayers and returned by 4 AM on the next day.  It has come to his knowledge that his bike was stolen.  The complainant hired service of the opposite party by paying parking fee and alleged that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss.  The complaint is filed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also Rs.2,500/- as cost of proceedings.

          3.  The 1^st opposite party filed written version contending that there is no bonafides in the complaint filed by the complainant.  It is admitted that on the 2^nd Friday of every month there used to have prayers at the IMF Retreat Centre, South of the opposite party’s School.  It is also contended that several believers attend the retreat and used to come in vehicle and used to park the vehicle nearby places.  It is also admitted that Rs.5/- was collected for parking in the campus by the opposite parties.  It is not intended for keeping the vehicle at the risk of the opposite party.  The parking facility is provided on the request of the believers during 5 PM to 9 PM.       The parking was allowed at their own risk and no documents were collected or verified by the opposite party.  Hence the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the loss of vehicle of the complainant and the cost of the proceedings.  The complainant had not informed the Police or Register case by producing the registered documents to prove the ownership of the vehicle.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts. A1 to A3.  No oral or documentary evidence on the part of opposite party.  Considering the fact that the complainant produced Exbt: A1 issued by the opposite party while parking the vehicle, the opposite party was made liable to compensate the complainant.

          5.  At the time of arguments, the counsel for the appellant stated that Exbt.A1 is a receipt issued on payment of Rs.5/- towards the construction of the compound wall of the 1^st opposite party.  No parking fees accepted by the opposite party for parking the vehicle in the compound of the 1^st opposite party.  There is no entrustment of the vehicle and the parking space is used at the owner’s risk.  No service is provided on the part of appellant and the claim of the respondent is to pay the value of the vehicle is absolutely illegal as no consideration is accepted by the appellant.  The counsel also pointed out that the complainant filed the FIR with the Police after a lapse of  5 months ie. on 18/12/2012.  It is mandatory to inform the police immediately on theft of a vehicle.  The respondent had not produced any document to show that he informed the Insurance Company regarding theft.  The counsel also pointed out that the vehicle manufactured in 2003 and the theft occurred on 13/07/2012.  The appellants provided the parking facility on accepting Rs.5/- and that amount was intended for the construction of the compound wall of the open space of the opposite party school.  Hence claim filed by the respondent is only to be dismissed.

          6.  Heard in detail and have gone through the records.  We find that Exbt. A1 is the C-pass for Rs.5/- issued on 13/07/12 for the vehicle KL-04-P-7262 issued by the 1^st opposite party.  It is mentioned in the slip ‘compound wall construction fund’.  It is an admitted fact that this receipt was issued by the 1^st opposite party on the disputed day for the vehicle of the respondent.  In the version filed by the opposite party it is also admitted that there had the IMF Retreat night prayer on the same day and it is used to park vehicle in the opposite party’s premises.  The pass was issued to park during 5 pm to 9 pm by the volunteers of the opposite party.  Hence it is evident that the 1^st opposite party used to collect Rs.5/- for parking charges and issued a receipt towards the ‘compound wall construction fund’.  As argued by the appellant’s counsel that the opposite party had not collected any parking fees as per the receipt cannot be taken as a grant for the opposite party while admitting that appellant collected the parking fee of Rs.5/- for parking the vehicle in the School premises.  At this juncture we would like to point out that the 1^st opposite party collected the parking fees fraudulently in the name of construction of compound wall which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The admission of collecting parking fees by the volunteers of the opposite party is certainly a consideration received from the consumer.  The issuance of receipt in a different account amounts to unfair trade practice which the Forum Below penalized and directed to pay the compensation.  The theft of the vehicle was informed by the complainant to the police only after 5 months.  The theft occurred on 13/7/2012 and the immediate information to the police as well as to the Insurance Company had to be done by the complainant was lacking in this case.  Exbt.A3 is the FIR dated 18/12/2012. The parking is entirely at the owner’s risk and nothing is on evidence to prove that there is no liability upon the opposite party.  The respondent had not produced any evidence to show that he approached the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the vehicle.  Hence the opposite party has no liability to compensate the loss of vehicle of the complainant.  However the collection of Rs.5/- on the ground of parking and issuance of a receipt towards the construction of compound wall certainly amounts to unfair trade practice and the penalty imposed on the 1^st opposite party by the District Forum is only to uphold.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

A. RADHA             :       MEMBER

 

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.204/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 28/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.