Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/587/2023

RAHUL CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2024

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	587 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	11.12.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	02.05.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Rahul Chauhan, 574, Dhanas, Sector 14-West, Chandigarh  

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Municipal Corporation, Parking Branch, Jan Marg, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its authorized person.

2]  Municipal Commissioner, Room No.101, First Floor, Municipal Corporation, Sector 17, Chandigarh

3]  Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh New Deluxe Building, Jan Marg, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its authorized person.

     ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by:-     Complainant in person

Sh.Nitin Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he has parked his Bike-bearing Regd. No.HR05AE1808 in the Parking of M.C., Chandigarh in front of Elante mall on 21.8.2023.  He further pleaded that he has tied his helmet with his bike and when he returned after an hour, he found major damage and there was no helmet there.  He dialed 112 immediately but the person did not take the responsibility of the lost helmet.  Upon complaint to the police, the Police Constable asked some questions to the two boys who were giving slips (issuing tokens for the parking) and the same answer to the constable. The complainant stated that he strongly criticized the negative attitude of the Constable.  He further stated that the Constable took his complaint, written DDR and assured him to look around for his helmet but they did not take any action.  The complainant went to Head Quarter of M.C., Sector 17, Chandigarh, where he was told to give written request along with DDR and diary number and he did the same. The complainant further pleaded that the police assured him to provide solution but did not provide any solution.  The complainant state that the he again went to Police Station and met SHO and asked his P.A. to provide him helmet.  The SHO asked him to wait in the Beat Box of Elante Mall Parking and assured him to provide him helmet within 15 minutes and he waited there for 45 minutes and then he called the complainant and told him to go home and call him next day.  The complainant alleged that when he messaged him in the morning of the next day then he asked him to call him on the next day. Thereafter when he called him on the next day, then he was very rude to him and told him to wait for some more days.  The complainant alleged that then he called SHO and told him about the behavior of his PA and the SHO also told him to wait for some period.  Thereafter, the complainant alleged that he has issued notices to all three including M.C. Parking Manager who are responsible for the act.  The complainant further mentioned that he is a student and studying in DAV College, Sector 10, Chandigarh and live alone and therefore did not have enough time and financial support to go against the tyrannical rules of official in the criminal court and therefore he represented his case before District Commission, Chandigarh.  He stated that as he is suffering from trauma and depression, so not able to study.  Lastly the complainant has prayed for a direction of this Commission to the OPs to pay him the cost of helmet i.e. Rs.3870/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.  

 

2]       After the service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission through their counsel and filed their written version to the complaint taking preliminary objection that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. They took objection that the MC charged for the parking of the vehicle and not for the accessories like Helmet.  They further took objection that the matter which is to be investigated by the Police Officer.  They admitted that DDR was lodged at the concerned Police Station at the instance of the complainant and no FIR has been registered till date which proves that it is a concocted story by the complainant.  Further stated that it is a malafide and frivolous complaint only to damage the reputation of the OPs.  Denying all other allegations made against them, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.  

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person,  ld.Counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.

5]      The main issued involved in the present complaint is whether the matter of theft is maintainable before this Commission or not ? 

6]       In the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that he has lodged the DDR with the Police Authorities regarding the theft of the helmet but no action was taken by the Police Authorities.  He further stated that he is a  student and did not have time & finance to take criminal proceedings in the criminal court and therefore, he filed the present complaint before this Commission.  So, it is clear that it is not the option of the complainant whether to file a case of criminal nature before the Criminal Court or before the District Commission.  It is mandate of the law that criminal cases are to be instituted in the criminal courts and not before the District Commission, which is not meant to deal with criminal cases/matters.

7]       Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs. Anis Ahmad, Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012, decided on 01.07.2013 has held the matter relating to theft are not to be adjudicated by the District Consumer Forums/Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Station Superintendent Vs. Surendra Bholla, decided on 15^th June, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 487 has held that theft committed in the railways could not be dealt with by the Consumer Commission. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India said, “We failed to understand as to how the theft could be said to be deficiency in service by the Railways when the passengers were not able to safeguard their belongings.”  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has barred the Consumer Commission to adjudicate upon the matters which are relating to the theft as the act of theft could not be termed as “deficiency in service” and being a criminal offence it is to be dealt with as per criminal proceedings in criminal trail courts.      

8]       In view of the above said judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, ‘Act of Theft’ cannot be held deficiency in service.  Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and is liable to be dismissed against the OPs. 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, though this complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost yet taking a lenient view cost is not imposed upon the Complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.

10]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02.05.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER