STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Shashi Kant Wadhawan, son of Sh. Satpal Wadhawan, R/o H. No.114, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.  Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Contractor of Parking,  Opposite K.F.C.,  Sector-8, Chandigarh, R/o of House No.1797, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

2.  Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Building, Sector-17, U.T., Chandigarh.

…. Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Baljeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint in the following manner:-

“In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed on qua OP No.1 (Contractor) with the following direction to OP No.1:-

(i)       to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him on account of theft of his vehicle from the parking area allotted to OP No.1.

(ii)     to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the dates of filing the complaint i.e. 03.06.2010 till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now appellant), was the owner of car bearing Regd. No.CH-04-A-1470 (Maruti Swift). The said car was insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, vide Policy (Annexure C-11), for the period from 07.12.2009 to 06.12.2010. The Insured Declared Value (IDV), of the said vehicle was Rs.4,25,000/-. According to the complainant, on 07.03.2010, he had parked his car, in the parking lot of Sector 8, Chandigarh, where he had gone alongwith his family members, for a meal in K.F.C. Restaurant, Sector 8, Chandigarh. It was stated that the said parking lot had been allotted to Opposite Party No.1 (Contractor), by Opposite Party No.2 (Municipal Corporation). The complainant, paid parking fees to Opposite Party No.1, who issued parking slip (Annexure C-2),  to him. It was further stated that after having meals, when the complainant, returned to the parking lot, he found his car missing. He immediately contacted the employees of Opposite Party No.1, at the parking lot, but they refused to help the complainant, in any manner.  The complainant, then reported the matter to the Police. FIR No.47 dated 7.3.2010, was got registered, at Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh.  It was further stated that after the car had been insured, the complainant got affixed Alloy wheels costing Rs.15,000/-, car stereo, central locking and gear lock for Rs.19,745/-, which were not covered by the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that, at the time of theft, a kit containing 2 tennis rackets, one track suit of Adidas Company, Skipping rope and a pair of tennis shoes of Adidas Company, were lying in the car, which were also stolen, alongwith the said vehicle. It was further stated that when the claim was lodged by the complainant, with the Insurance Company, the IDV of the car, was paid to him, by it (Insurance Company), but it did not pay the price of the alloy wheels, car stereo, central locking, gear lock and the kit containing the items, referred to above. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Parties were grossly deficient, in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant claimed compensation, from the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               Opposite Party No.1, in his reply, stated that there was no mention of alloy wheels, car stereo, central locking, gear lock and the kit containing the items, referred to above,  in the F.I.R. It was further stated that, loss of such articles, set up by the complainant, was nothing, but an afterthought.  It was further stated that, according to Clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, with regard to the allotment of parking lot, Opposite Party No.1, was not liable for loss, on account of theft of articles, kept in the vehicles, or for damage caused to the vehicles, while parked in the parking lot. It was further stated that the bill Annexure C-7 dated 18.01.2010, was a procured document. It was denied, that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               Opposite Party No.2, in its written reply, pleaded that the complainant, is not a consumer qua it. The affixation of accessories and existence of tennis kit, referred to above, in the car were denied by Opposite Party No.2.   It was further stated that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, settled between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, one of which was also mentioned, on the parking slip, issued to the complainant.  It was denied that Opposite Party No.2, was deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant.  The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.

7.               Feeling aggrieved, against part of the order, vide which no compensation, with regard to the loss of articles aforesaid, was granted, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that no doubt, the IDV value of the car, has already been paid to the appellant/complainant, by the Insurance Company. He further submitted that he got fitted the accessories i.e. alloy wheels, car stereo, central locking, gear lock, after the purchase of the same. He further submitted that, even, the bill Annexure C-7 dated 18.01.2010, was produced, in this regard, but the District Forum, was wrong in not taking into consideration the same, on the ground, that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant, on 15.03.2010. He further submitted that Annexure C-8 dated 09.03.2010, regarding the purchase of tennis kit, is an invoice and not the bill, which was also wrongly discarded by the District Forum.   He further submitted that the complainant was entitled to the amount of Rs.19,743.75 paisa and Rs.21,500/-,  as depicted in Annexures C-7 and C-8.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, requires modification to this extent.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.    There is, no dispute, that the car, in question, was got insured, by the complainant, from the Insurance Company. There is also hardly any dispute, that the car, in question, was parked, in the parking lot allotted to Opposite Party No.1 on 07.03.2010.  Annexure C-2, is the parking slip, which was issued to the complainant. The F.I.R., copy whereof is Annexure C-3, was lodged by the complainant, on 7.03.2010, when his car was stolen, from the parking lot of Opposite Party No.1. In case the accessories, as are mentioned, in Annexure C-7 dated 18.01.2010, were got affixed and the tennis kit, mentioned in Annexure C-8, was kept by the complainant, in his car, he could make a mention thereof, in the F.I.R. The perusal of the F.I.R. discloses that he informed the S.H.O., that his vehicle had been stolen, from the parking lot of K.F.C., at about 8.00 p.m. on 07.03.2010, and necessary action be taken. No doubt, the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia.  In this document, no mention was made, by the complainant, that the accessories, as are depicted in the bill Annexure C-7, were got affixed by him, in the car, and, if so, on which date. He also did not state in the F.I.R. that his tennis kit was lying in the car, when it was stolen. Even, the affidavits of the person, who issued Annexures C-7 and C-8, were not produced by the complainant, so as to establish the authenticity thereof. Under these circumstances, it could be said, that the complainant concocted a story regarding the affixation of the accessories in the car, and placing of tennis kit, containing the aforesaid items therein. Annexure C-8 bill/invoice is dated 09.03.2010, whereas the theft of car was committed on 07.03.2010. This also proves that Annexure C-8, was created lateron to get compensation. Even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that such accessories were got affixed and the tennis kit, was lying in the car, according to Annexure C-2, the parking slip, which was issued, in favour of the complainant, the Contractor was not responsible, for the theft of any article(s), kept in the vehicle, while using the parking facility. The complainant was, thus, bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure C-2. The District Forum, was, thus, right, in not placing reliance on Annexure C-7 and C-8, copies of the bills/invoices, as the same, did not appear to be genuine. The District Forum was, also right, in not granting the compensation, in respect of the alleged articles, mentioned in the bills/invoices  Annexures C-7 and C-8. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

11.            The findings of the District Forum, do not suffer from any illegality, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

13.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum, is upheld.

14.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

21.12.2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg