1. Muncipal CorporationChandigarh through its Commissioner2. Gurnam SinghContractor of Sahib Singh Parking Sector-17 Chandigarh
...........Respondent(s)
For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :
Dated : 03 Mar 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No : 1336 of 2009 Date of Institution : 23.09.2009 Date of Decision : 03.03.2010 Manju Malhotra w/o Sh. Vijay Malhotra, r/o # 897, Sector 10, Panchkula. ..Complainant V E R S U S 1. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through its Commissioner. 2. Gurnam Singh, Contractor of Sahib Singh Parking, Sector 17, Chandigarh, r/o #43/1, Village Khuda Ali Sher, U.T. Chandigarh Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Surinder Chandna, Adv. for complainant. Ms.Smriti, Adv. for OP No.1. OP No.2, exparte. PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT Succinctly put, the complainant parked her scooter in the parking of Neelam Cinema vide parking slip no. 5013 dated 15.01.2009. When she came back to take his scooter, she found that her scooter was missing from the said parking place. After that she informed OP-2 regarding the same. The complainant alongwith OP-2 made best efforts to search the scooter but were unable to trace the scooter. The complainant then lodged FIR no. 26 dated 23.01.2009, regarding the same. The untraced report had not been received till date. She stated that the OPs were negligent in providing proper services to her as she had received a slip after parking the vehicle and the OP-2 had failed to protect her vehicle. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. Notice was served to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OP-2. Accordingly OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte. 3. In the written reply the Learned Counsel for the OP-1 submitted that the complaint against OP-1 was not maintainable. The contract was between OP-1 and OP-2, where OP-2 was a licencee and it has been reiterated in amended terms and conditions of paid parking area w.e.f. 19.03.2008 issued by Municipal Corporation(Licensor), Chandigarh, that in case of any theft of vehicles, the licencee shall be responsible for theft of vehicles from parking area. Hence, OP-1 was not responsible in this matter, as the licencee i.e. OP-2 was responsible for the vehicles parked in the parking. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 4. The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. At the time of arguments to a query made by the Bench, the Learned Counsel for the complainant admitted that the scooter was insured with National Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.9,000/-. He has also produced the insurance Policy copy of which is now marked Annexure C-1. No mention was made by the complainant about this fact. It is the statutory duty of National Insurance Company to pay compensation to the complainant for loss of the scooter. The complainant was however dishonest in this respect because he had not mentioned in the complaint, if the vehicle was insured with the said company. He also did not mention if he has filed a claim for compensation with the said company and what amount he has received therefrom. He also did not mention if he did not file the claim and the reasons why this complaint for claim has been filed when he could get the amount from the said company. It appears the intention of the complainant is to enrich himself by getting the claim from the Insurance Company as well as from the OPs. A person who conceals the material information is not entitled to any relief even on merits. 7. There is another circumstance to show that the complainant is a dishonest person and cannot be relied upon. In para number 5 of the complaint he had claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of the cost (value?) of the scooter and Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment, However a perusal of the insurance policy now marked Annexure C-1 shows that IDV of the vehicle was only Rs.9,000/- when it was insured on 21.02.2008 which was stolen on 15.01.2009 and therefore the IDV of the vehicle on 15.01.2009 would be much lesser than the amount of Rs.9,000/-. It is not understood as to how he has assessed the cost of the scooter at Rs.15,000/- when according to his own estimation it was not more than Rs.9,000/- a year earlier. It shows that the intention of the complainant was to extract money from the OPs instead of getting a lower amount of compensation from the Insurance company. 8. For the loss of an old scooter worth Rs.9,000/- the complainant has claimed Rs.20,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, agony and harassment. The complainant has exaggerated the claim which shows that he is a greedy person and cannot be relied upon. 9. It is true that the vehicle was parked by the complainant in the parking area being run by Gurnam Singh OP-2 from where the vehicle was stolen. The complainant is entitled to the compensation from the insurance company to whom he claimed to have paid the premium. He however did not make the Insurance Company as a party to this complaint for the reasons best known to him. It appears to have been avoided to keep this Forum and the OPs in the dark about the insurance cover and to conceal if from the Insurance Company that he is getting compensation from the OPs through this Forum. We are therefore of the opinion that he is not entitled to any such compensation from the OPs. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- Sd/- 03.03.2010 3rd Mar., .2010 [Dr.(Mrs) Madhu Behl] [Jagroop Singh Mahal] rg Member President
DR. MADHU BEHL, MEMBER
HONABLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT
,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
