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

========

Complaint  Case No  :   830 of 2009

Date   of   Institution :    10.06.2009

Date  of    Decision   :    20.01.2010

Navneet Sama son of Sh.Virat Kumar Sama, R/o House NO.1115, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through its Secretary, Sector 17, Municipal Corporation Office, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:        None for complainant.

Sh.Vivek Arora, Adv. for OP-Municipal Corp.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The complainant on 12.3.2009 parked his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.PB.10-BA-4777 in the paid parking of OP in front of SCO No.22-23, Sector 9, Chandigarh against receipt Ann.C-1 but when the came back to get his motorcycle at about 10.45 P.M., he did not find it there.  The matter was reported to the Police, who lodged FIR No.32, dated 13.3.2009 under Section 379 IPC (Ann.C-2).  Thereafter complainant visited the OP Office many times to get the value of the lost motor cycle amounting to Rs.40,000/- since it was lost from their paid parking lot, which was duly managed by them,  but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

2]             OP filed reply stating interalia that the said Paid Parking Area of Sector 9, Chandigarh was being by run Private Security Agency, namely, M/s. Enter Climax Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 8.3.2009 to 31.7.2009.  However, parking slips were handed over to the said agency by the OP Corporation for proper management and record.   It is also stated that in fact the complainant did not contact the parking attendant at the parking lot at the time of incident nor the parking incharge was contacted, whose telephone number was displayed on the board.  It is further stated that the complainant did not approach the OP Corporation even on the next date of incident.   It is asserted that the duty of the attendants at parking lot remains for 12 hours starting from 9.00 A.M. till 9.00 P.M. and since the complainant himself came back at around 10.45 P.M. on the date of incident, therefore, the OP Corporation was not at all responsible for any deficiency in service as much as the complainant had not even contacted the Incharge of said parking lot. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their  contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OP and have perused the record.

5]             The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the paid parking in Sector 9, Chandigarh was run by a Private Security Agency M/s Enter Climax Pvt. Ltd, House no. 249 sector 9-C, Chandigarh by deploying its own parking attendants and not by the OP.  It is argued that the complaint should have been filed by the complainant against the said Agency and that the OP is not liable for the theft/loss of the vehicle.  We do not find any merit in this argument.  The parking slip Annexure C-1 is that of the OP.  Their contention that parking slips were handed over by the OP to the said parking Agency shows that infact the parking lot is managed by the OP, otherwise the parking slips would have been issued by the contractor, if the OP had no control over the parking lot.  Annexure C-1 is a strong circumstance to suggest that the said parking lot was managed by the OP and not by any such Agency.

6]             In case the parking lot was leased to M/s Enter Climax Pvt. Ltd, the OP would be having necessary documents therefore.  The OP however has not placed on file any lease deed or the agreement entered into between the OP and the said Agency which also suggest that the parking lot had not been leased to the said Agency.

7]             It   is   also   argued by the  OP  that  the  attendants  at   the   parking lot used to be on duty from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m.  According to the Learned Counsel if the complainant came back at 10.45 p.m to collect his vehicle, it was his fault in not taking the delivery of the vehicle before 9.00 p.m and therefore if any theft takes place it would be the responsibility of the complainant and not of the OP.  Again we do not find any merit in this argument. It is mentioned on the parking slip Annexure C-1 that the parking time was 8.00 a.m to 12.00 p.m midnight.  It is admitted that this slip was issued by the OP, whether to the Agency named by them or by the attendants of the OP directly to the complainant.  The contention of the OP that the parking time was only upto 9.00 p.m and that the complainant should have collected the vehicle before that time therefore cannot be accepted as correct. Otherwise also, the mere mentioning of this time would not bind the complainant.  The slip is not signed by the complainant and this unilateral term to evade its liability cannot be applied against the complainant. Taking for example if the OP had mentioned on the parking slip that they would be responsible for theft or damage only for 15 mts or 1 hour from the time of parking, that would not absolve them from their liability against theft or damage to the vehicle.

8]             The contention of the OP that the attendants are on 12 hours duty from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m also is no help to the OP. After collecting the parking charges when the vehicle is parked in the parking lot, it is the duty of the OP to protect the vehicle from theft and damage.  It appears after collecting the parking charges, the OPs leave the vehicles at the mercy of thieves, who can commit the theft of the belongings or the entire vehicle from the parking lot for which the OP claims that they are not liable. This position cannot be legally sustained.  If certain vehicles have not been taken back by the owners till 9.00 p.m, the OPs should have either put another attendant on duty after 9.00 p.m or a provision should have been made to handover the remaining vehicles to some responsible person to take care of the same, which has not been done in the present case, for which the OP can be held to be deficient in rendering proper service.

9]             Due to the theft of the vehicle, the complainant has been harassed.  He has to remain without a vehicle till he gets compensation therefor.  Even if the vehicle was insured and the complainant may be getting some compensation from the insurance company for the loss of his vehicle. However the OP is liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service resulting in the mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

10]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation alongwith Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation. The entire amount is to be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.06.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.