JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.3.2009,rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint against OP No.1 (now respondent), being not maintainable, and against OP No.2, on the ground, that its correct and complete address was not supplied, by the complainant(now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant and his son, who were doing the business at SCO No. 1138, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, used to park their Maruti 800 car bearing Registration No. CH-01-K-5252 in the paid parking area of the Market from 10.00 A.M. to 8.30 P.M. They were possessing the parking pass on monthly basis. On 23.7.2008, the son of the Complainant parked his car, in the parking area at about 10.00 A.M. and when he returned to get his car at 8.30 P.M., he was shocked, as the car was not there. He inquired from the Contractor about the car, who assured that the car would be traced soon. On the next day, when the Complainant again enquired about the car, from the Contractor, he told that he was not responsible for the theft of the car. An FIR dated 29.7.2008 was also lodged with PS Sector-17, Chandigarh. It was stated that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. When grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed a complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. 3. OP No.1, in its reply, stated that there was no deficiency in service on its part. It was stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the paid parking area Agreement, issued by the office of the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, OP No. 2, who was the contractor, was responsible for the theft of the vehicle, from the paid parking area, in respect whereof, the complainant had a monthly pass. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The correct and complete address of OP NO.2 was not supplied by the complainant, despite many opportunities, and, as such, his service was rendered impossible. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Complainant/ Appellant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the Complainant/appellant, submitted that, the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the Municipal Corporation was not liable to pay the compensation with regard to the theft of the car from the paid parking area, which was under the control of the contractor. He further submitted that the Municipal Corporation was the principal, and OP NO.2, the Contractor, was its agent, and, as such, it (Municipal Corporation) was vicariously liable for the acts of omission and commission of its agent. He further submitted that the complainant/appellant could not possibly furnish correct and complete address of OP No.2, who was the contractor of OP No.1. He further submitted that even an application was filed by the complainant in the District Forum, that OP No.1 (Municipal Corporation) be directed to supply the correct and complete address of OP No.2, but the District Forum, instead of directing OP No.1, to supply the complete and correct address of OP NO.2, dismissed the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for OP No.1 submitted that OP NO.1 was not at all liable to pay any compensation, as the car was stolen from the paid parking area under the control of OP No.2, the contractor, in respect whereof, the complainant had a monthly pass. He further submitted that it was duty of the complainant to find out the correct and complete address of OP NO.2, and no direction could be given to OP No.1 to furnish his complete and correct address, for the purpose of his service. He further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of OP NO.1 in rendering service, to the complainant/appellant. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be accepted and the case deserves to be remanded back, for fresh decision, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The complaint against OP NO.2, the contractor, from whom the pass had been obtained by the complainant for the paid parking area, was dismissed only, on the ground, that the complainant failed to furnish his correct and complete address. Undisputedly, the car, in question, was parked in the paid parking area, in respect whereof, the complainant was having a monthly pass. C-1 is a copy of the monthly pass, in respect of the car in question. If the theft of the vehicle, was committed, from the paid parking area, in respect whereof, the complainant was having the monthly pass, then certainly there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of OP No.2. It is evident from the record of the District Forum that the Counsel for the Complainant also moved an application dated 16.3.2009, wherein a prayer was made that OP No.1(Municipal Corporation) be directed to furnish the complete and correct address of OP NO.2, its contractor, but the District Forum did not consider the same in its right perspective. It is evident from C-1, the paid parking pass, obtained by the complainant from OP NO.2, that the name of the Contractor is written as Raj Kumar. The complete and correct address of Raj Kumar, Contractor/OP NO.2 was not mentioned in C-1. Since, Municipal Corporation gave the contract to Raj Kumar OP NO.2, and there must be some agreement, which had been executed between Raj Kumar and the Municipal Corporation, for taking the contract of paid parking area, OP No.1 could furnish his correct and complete address from its record. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was wrong, in not taking into consideration the application, so filed by the complainant. It is settled principle of law, that every lis should be decided, on merits, after affording full opportunity to the parties of being heard, instead of disposing of the same by resorting to mere technicalities. After all, the procedure is the handmaid of justice meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. The District Forum, thus, acted illegally in not accepting the application, referred to above, moved by the complainant and dismissing the complaint against OP No.2 on technical grounds. The order of the District Forum, therefore, being perverse, is liable to be set aside. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with no order as costs. The order dated 20.3.2009 of the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum for fresh decision, after effecting service on OP NO.2, on the basis of his correct and complete address as on 23.7.2008, to be furnished by OP NO.1, from its record, within ten days, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The District Forum shall decide the case afresh, without being swayed by the observations made, herein above, within a period of three months from 21.4.2011, after affording an opportunity of filing reply and leading evidence to OP NO.2, if his service is effected. 12. The parties are directed to appear before District Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh, on 21.4.2011. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
