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

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

Rajwinder Kaur w/o Sh. Jasdev Singh, r/o H.No.25, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

1.   PVR Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through the Manager Mr. Sanjeev Verma, 117/D, Centra Mall, Near Tribune Chowk, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh - 160002.

2.   PVR Limited, Block-A, 04^th Floor, Building No.9, DLF Cyber City, Phase III Gurgaon – 122002.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

           Sh. T.T.P. Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

           None for Opposite Party No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant has stated that after watching a movie (Ice Age 4) at PVR with her children, while coming out of the entrance at around 9:30 p.m. she fell into a marbled pit at PVR which was under construction for a fountain. The Complainant was badly hurt and bed ridden for 15 days (Medical records and photographs attached at Annexure C-1 to C-4). There was no lighting or sign near the pit under construction for fountain or even railing to protect anyone from falling into it. The Complainant thereafter filed a complaint with the Police Station at Industrial Area, but no action was taken [Annexure C3(i) and C3(ii)]. Alleging that any one could fall into the pit and get hurt even more severely than herself, the Complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to apologize for the inconvenience caused as well as to pay compensation for physical strain and mental agony, besides costs of litigation.   

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Party No.1 in reply has submitted that the story of the Complainant is completely concocted with an ulterior motive and denied for want of proof as the Complainant has not attached any movie tickets or ticket booking order or SMS of booking confirmation. The Complainant along with her 3-4 friends had come to PVR on 04.08.2012 and at about 7:30 pm the Security Supervisor has seen the Complainant leaving the Mall in a hurry while taking to someone on her phone. So engrossed was she in her conversation that she failed to see the fountain which is quite visible for everyone and thus straightaway walked into the fountain area and fell down. The Security Supervisor had rushed to help her. Answering Opposite Party has further stated that the whole area remains fully lightened during the day time and this is the first incident of this kind in the history of the Mall. The fall of the Complainant is due to her own fault and carelessness. Opposite Party has also contested that OPD card placed on record by the Complainant belongs to one Rajwati whereas the Complainant is Rajwinder Kaur. All other allegations of the Complainant has been denied and said to be misleading and concocted. Opposite Party has also stated that the Complainant had demanded Rs.50,000/- from them for amicable settlement by visiting their office. Opposite Party has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs for filing bogus complaint.    

4.          Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has maintained that the Complainant had stated that she fell into a marble pit which was under construction for a fountain. The Opposite Party is a tenant of the Mall and is running and operating the multiplex on 4^th, 5^th and 6^th floor of the Mall. As the fountain area as alleged by the Complainant is situated at ground floor, so it does not pertain to the answering Opposite Party. In view of the above submissions Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.          As the Opposite Party No.2 failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 26.06.2013, the arguments of the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 were heard. Hence, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 26.06.2013.

6.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

7.          We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and have perused the record.

8.          Annexure C-1 is the OPD card of Govt. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh in the name of Rajwati while Annexure C-2 is a medical consultation record of Ms. Rajwinder dated 7.8.2012. The Complainant has stated that the Police has not taken cognizance of her complaint [Annexure C3(i) and C3(ii)]. Annexure C-4 are the photographs attached by the Complainant about the area under construction for fountain. A perusal of the said photographs (date not mentioned) does not show any area under construction. The area is clean and there is a small carpet at the entrance easily visible to anybody walking through. There is a small pool of water visible on the side. The fountain if any and construction for it is not shown in the photographs.

9.          The Complainant has not attached any tickets to prove herself to be a consumer of the Opposite Parties. If she has visited the Mall otherwise and made payment for any items, no document thereof is on record as proof of her being a consumer. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-

(d) Consumer means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 1[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;

[Explanation : For the purposes of sub-clause (i), commercial purpose does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]

10.        To our mind, when there is no document on record to substantiate that the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties the complaint cannot be allowed in her favour. Also the photographs placed on record by the Complainant do not show any sign of any construction, as alleged or the fountain where the Complainant has fallen. So though we sympathize with the Complainant for the injuries suffered, we do not find her to be a consumer of the Opposite Parties and accordingly, cannot pass any adverse orders against the Opposite Parties. The complaint is dismissed accordingly. No costs. 

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

Announced

28^th June, 2013                            

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER