Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/93/2016

Manjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	93 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	9.2.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	9.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Manjeet Singh s/o Ram Singh r/o village Kalu Arain Hithar, Chhanga Khurd, District Ferozepur.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Commissioner.
2. Gurnam Singh, Parking Contractor, Sahib Singh Parking Lot, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                  PRESIDENT

S.S. Panesar                 PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.
For OP NO.1	:	Ms. Suman Devi, Adv. proxy for Ms. Deepali Puri, Adv.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Gurbir Pannu, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant’s son parked his motorcycle  having registration  NO. PB-05-Y-7644 duly locked in the sector 17 parking of the OPs considering it safe and got  a parking slip after paying Rs.5/- and went inside neelam cinema to watch a movie. When he ame out he could not find his motorcycle. The complainant’s son looked for the vehicle here and there but to no avail.   The complainant lodged an FIR o for the same with the Police. It is alleged that the complainant parked his vehicle for its safety in the  parking of the OPs but stolen therefrom. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.           The OP  No.1 filed its written statement denied that OP No.1 failed to take care of the vehicle and the loss occurred to the complainant due to the negligence of the answering OP.   It is asserted that as per clause 21 of the agreement the licensee is responsible for theft of vehicle and as such the OP No.2 is responsible for the alleged loss if any.  The complainant neither paid any amount to the answering OP nor any services were provided to the complainant by the answering OP.  Denying any role in the dispute in question it is prayed by OP No.1 that the complaint be dismissed. 
4.           OP No.2 in its reply stated that  the complainant has not come with clean hand before this Forum and a totally false story has been put forth by him. It is averred that  the complainant lodged FIR of the alleged incident after a delay of 9 days which itself creates a doubt as the police post is situated nearby the Neelam Cinema. It is further averred that as per complainant he went for a show at Neelam Cinema from 9.00 PM to 11.00 Pm whereas the show at the said cinema runs from 9.00 pm. Till 12.00 in the midnight. The complainant has not produced any such movie ticket on record. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.2, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.
6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8.      The Opposite Party No.1 has urged that he is not liable for any alleged theft in parking area in view of Clause 21 of the terms and conditions of the paid parking area, annexed as Annexure R-1. The said Clause 21 is reproduced herein below :-

“21. Theft of vehicles:- The licensee shall be responsible for theft(s) of vehicle(s) from parking areas. But, the licensee shall not be liable for theft of any article(s) kept in the vehicle or for damage caused to the vehicle (s) while parking in the parking area. The contractor shall not be held responsible for any theft/ damage to the vehicle before and after parking hours, even though the parking token was issued.”

                   From the perusal of afore extracted clause, it is abundantly clear that the licensee shall be responsible for the theft of the vehicle from the parking area. Hence, it is proved that Opposite Party No.1 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service and the Complaint against it is accordingly dismissed.

9.      Now we need to consider deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. This is a matter of fact that the parking lot in question was licensed in favour of OP No.2 for paid parking and it is OP No.2 only who was charging fee for parking of the vehicles. Therefore, it was the entire responsibility of OP No.2 alone to safeguard the vehicle while it was in its custody.  The complainant has produced vide Annexure C-3 copy of parking slip of Rs.5/-. Which proves that the complainant parked his vehicle in the parking lot of the OP No.2 against the said slip by paying Rs.5/-.  The complainant has also filed R-5 information collected under RTI Act, which proves that the complainant had informed the police control room regarding theft of his vehicle in question on 28.9.2015 at 1322 hrs.. Hence the contention of the OP-2  that the complainant informed the police after a period of 9 days does not hold any ground.  Thus, there is definitely deficiency on the part of the OP No.2 and it is liable to compensate the complainant.  Therefore, we hold that the OP No.2 is liable to pay the price of the vehicle less depreciation. Since the vehicle was only two year old, thus we quantify its price at the time of theft to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. As such the OP No.2 is liable to pay this amount to the complainant apart from paying compensation.  

2.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite  Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua him. The Opposite Party NO.2 is  directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.35,000/- towards the price of the vehicle in question.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

9.2.2017                             DR. MANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER