Date of filling: 12.10.2017
Date of order: 26.09.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
MONDAY THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 3/2018
Murugesan,
S/o. Muniyappa Mudhaliyar,
No. 47, Senganatham Road,
Bharathiyar Nagar,
Salavanpet, Vellore City,
Vellore District. ...Complainant
-Vs-
1. O.P.A. Ahamed Ibrahim,
S/o. Aslar Bai,
Kasim Godown Street,
Saidapet,
Vellore City – 632 012.
2. The Commissioner,
Vellore City Corporation,
Vellore City Corporation Office,
Vellore City – 632 001. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. G. Sasikumar
Counsel for first opposite party : Thiru. A. Karthikeyan
Counsel for second opposite party : Thiru. M. Pugazhendhee
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L.PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental agony and trouble with costs.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant is an owner of the bye cycle and he has parked his cycle on 16.03.2016 with the first opposite party cycle stand at about 6.A.M. The first opposite party under the supervision of the second opposite party. The first opposite party has given a token in acknowledgement of his cycle. After he went to Chennai and he return back to Vellore at around 10.P.M. He went to the cycle stand to collect his vehicle to shock and surprise the cycle parked by the complainant, was not found in the parking area. When he was enquired about his cycle, the keeper of the stand gave evasive answered, he did not bother about the cycle belonging to the complainant. He is searched in around the cycle stand, but the cycle could not be traced. Again he went on 17.03.2016 to the cycle stand and enquire whereabouts of his cycle. But the keeper of the cycle stands scolded with filthy language and dire consequences. The first opposite party had also sent some henchmen to the house of the complainant scolded with filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. The complainant sends a complaint to the second opposite party on 27.07.2016. But there was no response. Hence, this complaint.
2. Written version of the first opposite party is as follows:
This opposite party has denies all the allegations made in complaint. It is true that this opposite party was maintained and run by this opposite party which belongs to the second opposite party. In fact, the complainant had lost the said token issued by this opposite party and requested this opposite party to release his bye cycle which has been parked in the cycle stand maintained by this opposite party. In order to help the complainant and considering the situation and humanitarian grounds, this opposite party had allowed the complainant to take his bye cycle which has been parked in his cycle stand. Without producing the token issued by this opposite party, the complainant had already taken away his bye cycle and the said cycle is in the custody of the complainant. Taking advantage of the fact that the token is in his custody, and also cycle is in his care and custody, to gain wrongfully from this opposite party, the complainant had lodged this false complaint before this Hon’ble Commission without any legal basis. There is no needs or necessary for this opposite party to threaten the complainant with dire consequences. If such a incident occurs really, nothing prevented the complainant to lodge a complaint before the concerned Police Station. Till this date, the complainant had not chosen to lodge any such complaint before the Police. This fact will clearly proves that there is no such incident took place. With some ulterior motive to harass this opposite party and gain wrongfully from this opposite party. The complainant filed this complaint before this Hon’ble commission. There is no merit or bonafide in the above complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost this complainant.
3. Written version of second opposite party is as follows:
The complainant to direct the second opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and trouble with cost. The opposite party denies the entire allegations made in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and put complainant to the strict proof of the same. The allegation made in the para 1 that the first opposite party took the cycle stand in the tender called by this opposite party. In clause 7 of the tender condition it is only the auctioneer alone is responsible for any damages or theft. Hence this opposite party is not liable to pay compensation. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be dismissed the relief as against this opposite party.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. Proof affidavit of opposite parties not filed. Documents not filed. Written argument of complainant filed. Written arguments of opposite parties not filed. Oral Arguments not heard.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NOS.1 & 2: The complainant is the owner of the bye cycle and the cost of the above said vehicle was Rs.9,125/-. The said invoice purchase marked as Ex.A2. He has parked his vehicle at the first opposite party cycle stand on 16.03.2016 for going to Chennai. The first opposite party gave a token for the custody of the cycle. The said token was marked as Ex.A1. On going through the said token, we find that the said token having date of on 16.03.2016. Therefore, the said vehicle was parked on 16.03.2016. On returning from Chennai when he was approached the first opposite party got back the cycle. But the cycle was not found in the parking area when he was asked whereabouts of the cycle, the first opposite party did not gave proper answer and the first opposite party also threatened with dire consequences and using the unparliamentary words against the complainant. Thereafter, without vehicle he has gone to home and return the next morning came to the first opposite party parking stand. The first opposite party again tease the complainant and making allegations as if without giving the token “You have taken away the vehicle to his home and verify the same”. The first opposite party send his workman to the house of the complainant. Where there was no cycle, there also the first opposite party made some unwanted allegations against the complainant. Therefore, the complaint made a complaint to the second opposite party regarding the loss of his cycle. But the second opposite party did not give proper response. Therefore, the complainant has no other option except filing this complaint before this Hon’ble commission. After filing the complaint, the Hon’ble commission issued the notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not appear and called absent set exparte. On applications the both parties exparte order was set aside and there after they file their respective written version, in the written version the first opposite party admitted that the complainant parked his vehicle in their stand. But, their defence is that without giving the token, he took away his vehicle to his home. Further, he also contended that if at all, if the complainant, actually lost his vehicle, he should have given the police complaint, but he has not chosen to give the police complaint, therefore there is no genuinely in his claim. But it is bound and duty of the first opposite party when he was took the vehicle for his custody, he should have return the vehicle when the complainant given back the token with the first opposite party. The first opposite party is bailer as far as the cycle is concerned as contemplated in the Contract Act. Because, he is collecting a certain amount for rendering his service. But, he was making an allegation against the complainant, as it. He has taken away his vehicle without giving the token with them. We found that the first opposite party has not proper in their duty. He has derelictions from his duty. Therefore, we find that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. Further, in view of the written version filed by the second opposite party. The second opposite party simply washed of their hands stating that the first opposite party alone his responsible for any theft are damaged with regard to the parking vehicles. Therefore, in view of the condition rendered in Clause-7 of the tender condition. The first opposite party alone his responsible for the any theft are damaged caused to the vehicle parked in the stand. Further, the first opposite party being a custodian of the said vehicle should have lodged a complaint with Police regarding to the loss of cycle. But, in the present case he failed to do so. It shows that the first opposite party did not care about the vehicles parked in the cycle stand. For foregoing reason we find, that there is a deficiency in service on the first opposite party.
7. POINT NO.3: As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The first opposite party is here by directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,125/- (Rupees Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only) the cost of the bye cycle and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
8. In the result this complaint is partly allowed. The first opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,125/- (Rupees Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only) the cost of the bye cycle and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realisation. As against the second opposite party this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 26th September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1- 16.03.2016 – Copy of the token No. 4359 of Vehicle given by the first
opposite party
Ex.A2-10.01.2016 - Copy of the purchase receipt No.1201,of the vehicle of the
Complainant
Ex.A3-17.04.2016 - Office copy of the notice
Ex.A4-18.05.2016 - Office of the complaint
Ex.A5-27.07.2016 - Office of the complaint
Ex.A6 - Office copy of complaint
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDES DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
