Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/08/318

RAJAN V K - Complainant(s)

Versus

P SATYANADHAN - Opp.Party(s)

14 May 2010

ORDER


KOZHIKODECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Complaint Case No. CC/08/318
1. RAJAN V KVETTAKKARAKUNNUMMEL,CHERODE EAST P O,VATAKARA,673105KOZHIKODEKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. P SATYANADHANPUTHIYOTIL (H),PUTHUPPANAM P O,VATAKARA,KOZHIKODE673105KOZHIKODEKerala2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGERSOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKADE DIVISION,PALAKKADEPALAKKADEKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB., ,PRESIDENTHONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA., ,MemberHONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB., ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 14 May 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By G. Yadunadhan, President:
 
            The complaint was filed on 22-9-08. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. KL-11/L/2271. On 9-7-2008 the complainant parked his motor cycle in the parking yard provided by the first opposite party at Vatakara Railway Station by paying requisite parking fee to the first opposite party. The complainant is working as an Auditor in Finance Department at Civil Station, Calicut. He usually kept his motor cycle in the parking yard in Vatakara Railway Station in the morning and taken back in the evening. On 9-7-08 he parked his vehicle in the parking yard after paying Rs.2/- being the fee for parking to the keeper appointed by the first opposite party. When he reached the Railway Station in the evening the motor cycle belonging to him is not found in the parking yard. Immediately he informed the yard keeper about the loss of vehicle and the complainant, his friends and the keeper made vigorous search to find out the motor cycle. But the vehicle was not found. The complainant waited till 9 P.M. in the Railway Station. But the opposite party has not come to the spo0t or enquired about the missing of the vehicle thereafter. After that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Vatakara Police as Crime No. 799/2008. After that the complainant caused to issue a notice to the first opposite party informing the loss of the vehicle in the parking place and requested for compensation for the loss of the vehicle. The opposite party has not replied so far. Hence complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties to pay compensation and also actual value of the vehicle.
 
            Opposite party-1 filed a version denying all the allegations made by the complainant and states that it is not clear from the receipt produced by the complainant that the vehicle bearing No. KL-11-L-2271 is parked in the railway station premises and information regarding the missing of the vehicle. Further averment of first opposite party is that they have not neglected the complainant. Opposite party noticed the missing of the vehicle only on receipt of a notice at a later stage. Hence he could not take any steps since the petitioner has not approached the opposite party they could not even reported the matter to the concerned authority and denies the fact that the Vatakara Police summoned them. The fee collected from the petitioner is only for vehicle parking space. Therefore neither the railway nor the contractor has to pay compensation.
 
            Opposite party-2 also filed their version stating that the vehicles are allowed to park in the railway premises under direct supervision of the contractor for which they produced agreement entered between opposite party-1 and 2. According to opposite party-2 Clause-10 of the agreement is that licensee shall issue paper tickets to the person who leaves the vehicle and the vehicle shall be allowed to be taken on returning the ticket by that person. As per Clause-13 licensee shall be responsible for any loss or damage to the vehicle, hence opposite party cannot be imposed any liability to the loss sustained by the complainant. They are absolved from any kind of legal liability.
 
            The points for consideration is (1) Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? (2) If so what is the relief?
 
            The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked. Opposite parties have no oral evidence but opposite party-2 produced Ext.B1 (Agreement). Ext.B1 agreement was not denied by opposite party-1. At the same time it is binding upon the opposite parties. On going through the Clause-10 of the agreement opposite party has to hand over a paper ticket and entitled to collect fees. Ext.A1 shows that the petitioner parked his vehicle and opposite party-1 issued Ext.A1 ticket. The only question remains what are the duty and obligations in such entrustment.  Clause-13 reveals that opposite party-1 shall be responsible for any damages to the vehicles while the same was in their custody. As per Ext. a5 the vehicle was stolen from the custody of opposite party-1. In such circumstances what is the legal obligation of opposite aparty-1 towards the petitioner. As per Ext.B1 agreement opposite party-2 is absolved from any kind of legal liability and Clause-13 cast the liability or responsibility for the loss or damages upon opposite party-1. Hence the Forum found there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party-1 in keeping the vehicle properly for which he failed. Since the petitioner has got some other remedies to realize the actual value of lost vehicle the petition cannot be allowed as prayed for. But as the opposite party-1 made deficiency in service the Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.5000/- for the loss sustained by him. Therefore opposite party-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which opposite party-1 shall pay 8% interest till the realization of the amount.
 
Pronounced in the open court this the 14th day of May 2010.
Date of filing: 22-9-08
 
            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/-MEMBER
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
 
A1. Receipt of parking fee.
A2. Photocopy of letter dt. 10-7-08.
A3. Photocopy of Regd. Letter dt. 23-7-08
A4. Photocopy of Lawyer notice dt. 11-8-2008.
A5. Photocopy of First Information report dt. 14-7-08.
A6. Photocopy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle.
 
Documents exhibited for the opposite party.
B1. Photocopy of agreement dt. 13-3-2006.
 
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Rajan.V.K. (Complainant)
 
Witness examined for the opposite party.
            None.
 
                                                                        Sd/- President
 
                                    // True copy //
 
(Forwarded/By order)
 
 
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
 
           

[HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member