STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.292 of 2010)

MOH Parking, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Contractor Owner, Gurjit Singh, Village Bhankerpur, Tehsil Derabassi, Near Khera, Derabassi, Derabassi 140507.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.                 Ms. Bhavya Sharma d/o Bhudev Sharma r/o H.No.C-3, Kendriya Vihar, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

2.                 Mrs. Neelam Kanta wife of Bhudev Sharma r/o H.No.C-3, Kendriya Vihar, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.  M.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                           This appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the OP/appellant against the orders dated 22.7.2010 and 10.8.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainants (respondents) was  allowed and the OP/appellant was directed to pay Rs.4,18,681/- to the complainant being the price of the car alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           The facts of the complaint in brief are that on 24.10.2009 at 9.45 a.m., Ms.Bhavya, complainant No.1 went to Sector 17, Chandigarh in order to attend her classes in Global Education Center, SCO No.154-155, Sector 17, Chandigarh. She parked her car bearing registration No.CH-04-H-0283 in MOH Parking at Sector 17, Chandigarh (OP). She paid a sum of Rs.5/- as parking fee and obtained receipt. After attending her classes, when she came back to the parking lot, she found that her car was missing. She made enquiries from the persons present at the parking, but no satisfactory answer was given to her. Ultimately, she informed her parents, who came to the spot. The matter was reported to the police. After preliminary inquiry, a case under section 406 of IPC was registered against OP. It was alleged that the complainants approached the OP a number of times, but they failed to pay the price of the car.  Alleging the aforesaid acts of OP as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                           Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. However, the employees of OP refused to accept the summons. Hence, the OP was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.05.2010.

4.                           The complainants led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned orders, as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment, which have been challenged in the present appeal.

6.                           We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.                           The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the OP was never served at the address given in the complaint; that the complainant put up a second address as per his application dated 11.3.2010 and the summons issued to the OP/appellant were never personally tendered to him, but those are reported to have been tendered to the workers at the parking lot, who refused to accept the service.   It is argued that no name of the worker, to whom the summons were tendered, has been mentioned in the report nor any signatures of the witnesses have been given.  The process server, who is alleged to have tendered the summons, has not submitted his affidavit in support of his contention. The ld. Counsel, therefore, argued that the OP was not properly served and was not given any opportunity of submitting his version before the ld. District Forum. This contention is opposed by the ld. Counsel for the complainant.

8.                           A perusal of the record shows that the summons had been tendered to the officials of the OP and they had refused to accept the service.  It was on the basis of this report dated 3.5.2010 that the OP/appellant was proceeded against exparte.  We are, however, of the opinion that an opportunity should be granted to the OP to submit his version before the ld. District Forum so that the matter is decided on merits, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence.  The appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned orders are set aside, however, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs by the OP/appellant to the complainant. The ld. District Forum shall give an opportunity to the OP/appellant to file reply to the complaint, on payment of above mentioned Rs.5,000/-, and shall thereafter give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions. The matter shall be decided afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the ld. District Forum on 25.5.2011.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

27^th April 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg