Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/207

Varinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Grewal Scooter Stand - Opp.Party(s)

KB Sharma Adv.

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 207 of 26.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   04.04.2016 

 

Varinder Kumar son of Late Sh.Hari Chand, resident of H.No.1744/3, Habib Ganj, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.M/s Grewal Scooter Stand, Chandigarh Road, Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur.

2.Mukhtiar Kaur Proprietor of M/s Grewal Scooter Stand, Chandigarh Road, Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.D.P.Bali, Advocate

For OPs                          :          Sh.Varinder Gogna, Advocate.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by Sh.Varinder Kumar against Ops by claiming that Op1 is running the scooter stand under the name and style of M/s Grewal Scooter Stand at Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana. On 23.01.2015, the complainant parked his scooter Activa bearing registration No.Pb-10-CG-4643 in the said scooter stand. Receipt No.949 dated 23.01.2015 was issued in that respect. However, when the complainant returned back in the parking lot for fetching up his scooter Activa, then he found the same not to be standing there. OPs did not furnish satisfactory reply of such missing of scooter Activa. Rather, OPs kept on procrastinating the matter. Thereafter, time and again complainant approached OPs with the request to trace out his scooter Activa, but OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the others. Even after one week period, Ops failed  to trace out the above said vehicle of the complainant and thereafter, Ops finally refused to trace out the vehicle of the complainant. So by pleading deficiency in service, Rs.30,000/- claimed on account of financial loss suffered due to missing of scooter Activa, but Rs.20,000/- claimed as compensation for mental suffering. Even legal notice dated 2.2.2014 was served through counsel, but to no effect.

2.                Ops appeared and filed their joint written statement by claiming interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus standi; there is suppression of material facts, due to which, the complaint is not maintainable. Besides it is claimed that false and frivolous complaint has been filed, despite the fact that scooter in question never parked in the parking lot of OPs. Admittedly, Op1 is running scooter stand in question, but receipt No.949 dated 23.1.2014 produced by the complainant alleged to be fictitious one. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with affidavit Ex.CB of his wife Smt.Asha Rani and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Smt.Mukhtiar Kaur OP2 thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the complainant that affidavits Ex.CA of complainant and Ex.CB of Smt.Asha Rani along with receipt Ex.C1 establishes as if the scooter Activa in question was parked by the complainant in the scooter stand of OPs, but the same stood missing on the day of parking itself, for which, OPs have not submitted proper reply and as such, for the loss of scooter Activa caused to the complainant by the Ops, latter are liable to pay Rs.30,000/- as price of scooter Activa. These submissions vehemently controverted by the counsel for OPs by contending that receipt Ex.C1 is forged one. No proof regarding the ownership of the scooter Activa bearing registration No.PB-10-CG-4643 has been produced by the complainant,  despite the fact that the same could have been got produced by calling upon the officials of DTO or by producing the duplicate copy of the said registration certificate. That has not been done and as such, best evidence withheld by the complainant for proving that he remained owner of scooter Activa in question at any point of time. If that be the position, then the contents of written statement filed by the Ops along with that of affidavit Ex.RA of OP2 are correct that actually scooter Activa in question was never parked by the complainant at the scooter stand of OPs.

7.                In complaint, it is specifically mentioned at two places at para no.2 that scooter was parked on 23.01.2015, but in the affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB of complainant and his wife, it is claimed as if the said scooter was parked on 23.1.2014. So, in view of difference of one year qua the date of parking, it has to be held that actually claim of the complainant qua parking of the scooter activa in question at the scooter stand of OPs may not be correct. Even on the receipt Ex.C1, date 23-1 is mentioned, but year is not mentioned at all. Signature of owner is not there on Ex.C1 and   as such, authenticity of this receipt is also on doubt.

8.                Nowhere in the complaint, it is mentioned as to how much amount was paid through this receipt Ex.C1, but in affidavit Ex.CA, it is mentioned in para no.3 as if Rs.10/- were paid by the complainant to OPs. However, in affidavit Ex.CB of Smt.Asha Rani, a blank is left qua the paid amount through receipt in question. So, payment of amount of Rs.10/- at the time of fetching of receipt Ex.C1 even has not proved because if actually Rs.10/- would have been paid, then the same would have been mentioned in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.CB.

9.                No DDR or FIR lodged qua the missing of scooter activa in question by the complainant till date and as such, the same further leads to the inference as if convincing evidence regarding missing of the scooter activa from the scooter stand is not adduced by the complainant. Though, complainant claims to have approached OPs time and again for requesting them to trace out the scooter activa, but dates of such visits or of approach not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in the submitted affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB. In view of that story put forth by the complainant looks unnatural and unbelievable that he has been approaching Ops for tracing out the alleged   lost scooter activa. If really, the scooter activa in question would have been lost, then FIR or DDR would have been lodged with the Police, but the same is not the position and as such, story of loss or of theft of the scooter activa even is not proved by the complainant by producing cogent and convincing evidence.

10.              As proof of ownership of the scooter activa or of loss of the same not produced by adducing convincing or believable evidence and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:04.04.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.