DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.895/2006
Shri Murari Lal
Sole Proprietor of
M/s Modern Engineering & Welding Works
Having its office at : A-263,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
….Complainant
Versus
- Shri S.B. Singh S/o Unknown
Contractor, NDMC Parking Lot
Opposite Patiala House Courts
Near Boundary Wall of NSCI Club,
Purana Quila Road, New Delhi.
Shri Sonu S/o Unknown
Attendant, NDMC Parking Lot
Opposite Patiala House Courts (Given up)
Near Boundary Wall of NSCI Club,
Purana Quila Road, New Delhi.
- New Delhi Municipal Corporation
through its chairperson
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
- Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta
S/o Shri B.P. Gupta,
3-C/11, Near Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
and also
R/o 716/21, Second Floor,
West Joshi Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 03.08.2006 Date of Order : 18.01.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Original complaint was filed against Shri S.B. Singh (OP-1), Sonu (OP-2) and N.D.M.C. (OP-3). Lateron, complainant amended the complaint and impleaded one Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta as OP-4. It may be stated here that the complainant has given up OP-2 Sonu as unnecessary party.
The case of the complainant is that one of its employees, namely, Rajesh Kumar parked firm’s car bearing No. DL-3CJ-1181 make Maruti-800 in OP-3’s licenced parking lot opposite Patiala house Courts near boundary wall of N.S.C.I. Club on Purana Quila Road, New Delhi on 02.08.2004 at about 10.00 AM against parking slip/ ticket bearing No. 011522 issued by Sonu, the attendant, and on the directions of OP-1 and the said Sonu, Rajesh Kumar also handed over the keys of the car to them because the same were required in order to move the car so as to enable the entry and exit of other cars and park the same in a space conserving manner. On his return from the court at about 02.30PM, Rajesh Kumar found that the car was missing. When OP-1 and the said Sonu could not satisfy him about the whereabouts the car, he lodged an FIR No. 394/04 under Section 379 IPC at police station Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Lateron, he came to know that OP-4 Pawan Kumar Gupta was the contractor of the said parking lot on the relevant date. The OPs did not take any action. Accordingly, complainant filed the present complaint pleading negligence, connivance and gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- towards cost of the car, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance and telephone in pursuing the matter, Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages on account of loss of business, inconvenience, mental agony, harassment and sleepless nights and Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of filing of the complaint and Rs. 100/- towards court fee.
OP-1 in the reply has inter-alia stated that he was not the contractor of the said parking lot on the relevant date since he had the contract of the parking lot till 31.08.2003. He has further stated that even otherwise the contractor is not liable for any of the acts of his employees as there is no provision or procedure for giving keys of the vehicle to the attendants and that it is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to keep keys with him after parking vehicle in the parking lot which fact is also mentioned on the slip that it is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle in case there is loss of any valuable articles which includes key of the car.
OP-3 NDMC in the written statement has pleaded that its liability, if any, is limited to the parking contractor Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta (OP-4) who has employed his staff and also maintains the parking lot. It is further stated that as per clause 19 of the contract between NDMC and OP-4, the contractor shall be liable and responsible for all the damages or losses caused to the vehicles during their parking at the site and NDMC will not be responsible or liable on any account for the same and NDMC will not be made a party in any such dispute or proceedings.
OP-4 Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.12.2013 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit and affidavit of one Shri Rajesh Kumar in the evidence. On the other hand, OP-1 has filed his own affidavit in evidence and affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar, Joint Director, Enforcement has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-3.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file.
From the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, it is evident that it was OP-4 Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta who was the contractor of the parking lot opposite Patiala house Courts near boundary wall of N.S.C.I. Club on Purana Quila Road, New Delhi on 02.08.2004.
We have perused the parking slip bearing No. 01152. It inter-alia stipulates that NDMC shall not be responsible for loss of any loose article like cash, valuable goods etc. left in the vehicle. This is the only condition so far as OP-3 NDMC is concerned. Nowhere, in the said slip has it been mentioned that the owner of the vehicle shall be responsible for the loss of goods, valuable goods / keys of the vehicle parked in the parking lot.
However, the said condition is binding on the complainant as well as on the contractor so far as OP-3 NDMC is concerned. Therefore, we hold that OP-3 NDMC cannot be held responsible or guilty of any deficiency in service.
There is material on the record to prove that CW Rajesh Kumar had infact parked the car in question in the said parking lot on 02.08.2004 and that the car had been stolen/ misplaced from the said parking lot. The copy of FIR No. 394/04 dated 03.08.2004 has been filed on the record.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the attendants of parking lots generally collect the keys of the vehicles from the owners/ occupiers of the cars/ other vehicles while allowing them to park their cars/ vehicles in parking lots in order to move the car/ vehicle so as to enable the entry or exit of other cars/ vehicles and park the same in space conserving manner. Therefore, it was nothing new or surprising that Shri Rajesh Kumar while parking car bearing No. DL-3CJ-1181 in the said parking lot being run by OP-4 as a contractor had handed over the keys of the car to the attendant Sonu at the latter’s request.
Therefore, as soon as the keys were collected on behalf of the contractor by the attendant, it became the responsibility of the contractor to ensure the safety of the car and to ascertain that no damage whatsoever including theft of the vehicle could take place. However, we have reason to believe that OP-4 and the attendant Sonu did not perform their duty diligently and acted in a gross negligent manner. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is OP-4 who was / is guilty of deficiency in service in the present case. We hold accordingly.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP-1 and OP-3 and allow the same against OP-4 Pawan Kumar Gupta and direct him to pay Rs.1,30,000/- towards cost of the car along with interest @ 5% per annum from 02.08.2004 till realization and Rs.25,000/- in lumpsum towards mental pain and agony and cost of litigation to the complainant. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP-4 shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from 02.08.2004 till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 18.01.2018.
