SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest towards the value of replacing wind screen of his car, together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Complainant case is that he is the owner of swift car 2009 model having Registration No. KL58B4539. He has been working as lottery business agent and he used to park his car at the parking area of Kannur Railway station. 1st OP is the approved contractor of Southern railway (OP No.2) parking space.
It is submitted that on 02/06/2018 he parked his vehicle at the parking area of 1st OP and had give Rs.90 to OP No.1 for the safety parking of the vehicle. Further submitted that on 03/06/2018 at 3 Pm complainant reaching the Kannur Railway station and when he reached at the parking area to take his car, he noticed that the wind screen of the car was in broken condition. So he had sustain a loss of Rs.10,000/-. When he informed the matter to OP No.1, he scolded the complainant with dirty language. After that complainant made complaint before the Kannur Town police but the police did not take any action.
Due to the incident he had to keep the vehicle idle for 10 days at the workshop to change the wind screen. So he is claimed compensation and amount of wind screen etc from the OPs and filed this complaint.
After receiving notice OPs 1 and 2 filed their version separately.
OP No.1 submitted that he is not a contractor of Sothern railway parking space in Kannur Railway. He has no connection with respect to railway parking space in Kannur Railway. He neither received any amount from the complainant as parking fee nor issued receipt for that. Moreover he never assured them to look after the vehicle safely and received Rs.90/- from the complainant. He is not an approved contractor of railway parking ground of Southern Railway as stated in the complaint. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this OP as alleged in the complainant. This OP submits that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this OP as prayed for. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against him.
OP No.2 denies averments made in the complaint . It is submitted that the averment in the complaint that on 03/06/2018 at 3 Pm complainant reaching the Kannur Railway station and when he reached at the parking area to take his car, he noticed that the wind screen of the car was in broken condition. So he had sustain a loss of Rs.10,000/-. When he informed the matter to OP No.1, he scolded the complainant with dirty language. After that complainant made complaint before the Kannur Town police but the police did not take any action are not correct. It is submitted that the car was taken back in the very same condition the same was parked there. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
As per the contentions in the version of OP 1, complainant has impleaded OPs 3 and 4 as per IA No.336/2022. After receiving notice, both OPs 3 and 4 remained absent and did not contest the matter. Hence both OPs 3 and 4 were declared as ex-parte. After that complainants have taken steps to implead OPs 5 as additional OP. It was allowed and impleaded OP No.5 as per IA No.152/2023. After receiving notice, OP No.5 filed version stating his contentions. It is contended that he is the approved contractor of southern railway parking space at the Eastern side (New entrance) of Kannur Railway station from 01/02/2018 till 31/07/2018. But he neither received any amount from the complainant as parking fee nor issued any receipt for that. This OP had no acquaintance with the complainant or his son and received Rs.90/- from the complainant as stated in the complaint.
At the evidence stage complainant has field his chief-affidavit and documents. Examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A6. Pw1 was subjected to cross-examination by OPs 2 and 5. On the side of OPs, OP No.5 filed chief affidavit and one documents. Examined as Dw1 and marked the document as Ext.B1. While the case is pending, complainant expired and impleaded his legal heirs as Additional Complainants 2 to 4. After closing the evidence complainant argued and OP5 filed written argument note.
Here though complainant arrayed 5 OPs, only OPs 2 and 5 are contested the matter. OP No.2 is the Southern Railway and OP No.5 is the approved contractor of southern Railway at Kannur station.
Complainant’s allegation is that when he returned at 3 PM on 03/06/2018 after entrusting his car having Registration No. KL 58B4539 to OP No.5 parking at parking area of southern Railway Kannur station by paying the parking fee of Rs.90, he had noticed that the wind screen of the care was in a broken condition. Further, alleged that when he reported the said incident to OP No.2, Southern Railway, they scolded him in filthy language.
The point to be decided is whether complainant proved his case against OPs 2 and 5.
OP No.2 denied all the allegations of the complainant against them. It is contended that the incident alleged by the complainant is not true. It is submitted that no such incident happened at their parking ground on 03/06/2018 and complainant did not report it to OPNo.2. The wind screen of the car of the complainant was broken due to the alleged incident is also denied by OP No.2. According to OP No.2, as there was no such loss, (broken of wind screen) happened to the complainant and did not submitted the purchase bill and labour charge, for replacing the new wind screen.
OP5 also denied the incident narrated by the complainant. OP5 admitted that he is the approved contractor of southern railway and his parking place is at the eastern side (New entrance) of Kannur railway station from 01/02/2018 till 31/07/2018. But he neither received any amount from the complainant as parking fee nor issued any receipt for that. OP has submitted Ext.B1 to establish his contention about parking space which shows that he was an approved contractor of OP No.1 and parking space allotted to him was 2nd entry at Kannur Railway station. It also reveals that he has paid fee for Rs.17,290/- towards GST for the month of June 2018. It shows that Ext.B1 is issued by Deputy stationManager Commercial, Southern Railway, Kannur.
From Ext.B1 it is revealed that in Kannur Railway station, there are two parking grounds. 1st entry and 2nd entry and OP No.5 is the approved contractor in 2nd entry. That means there was another approved contractor at 1st entry. Ext.B1 shows that oP5 is the contractor at 2nd entry ie at eastern side. During cross-examination Pw1 deposed that he had parked his car at front side of Railway station ie at western side. So there is a difference in the parking area.
Complainant submitted Ext.A4 to establish his contention about payment of parking fee. OP No.5 contended that parking area, vehicle No., date of parking, amount of fee paid etc. will be shown in the receipt. Ext.A4 submitted by the complainant is not a legible one. On perusal we can realize that parking area is No.1, amount received is Rs.90 and vehicle number is 4539. Which shows, complainant’s vehicle was parked at parking ground No.1. Ext. B1 shows, OP No.5 was the approved contractor at parking area No.2. From the deposition of Pw1 as also we can realize that complainant parked at western side of railway station ie parking ground No.1.
More over, complainant has failed to substantiate the alleged incident by submitting the purchase bill of new win screen and its labour charge for replacing it. Moreover, In photos Ext.A3 series, it is not clear about the broken of window screen.
Hence by considering over all evidence submitted by the parties we are of the view that complainant failed to establish his case against opposite parties. So we cannot find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result complaint fails and hence it is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Copy of complaint submit before CI of police, Kannur
A2-Receipt received from Kannur POlice
A3-Train ticket
A4-Received issued by railway Contractor (marked with objection).
A5(series)- Photos 3 in number(marked with objection).
A6-Copy of registration certificate
B1- Letter issued by Station Manager to DCM Palakkad dated 30/06/2018(Subject to proof)
Pw1- Bhaskaran K- Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
