STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Contractor of Parking opposite K.F.C. Sector 8, Chandigarh (Resident of House No.1797, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh).

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Sh. Shashi Kant Wadhawan, son of Sh. Satpal Wadhawan, resident of House No.114, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

....Respondent

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

….Proforma Respondent

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. Atul Sharma, 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, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1) and directed OP-1 (now appellant), as under:-

“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 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/-. It was stated that on 07.03.2010, the complainant had parked his car, in the parking lot of Sector 8, Chandigarh, where he and his family members had gone for a meal at K.F.C. Restaurant, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The said parking lot had been allotted to OP No.1 (Contractor), by OP No.2 (Municipal Corporation). The complainant paid parking fees to OP 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 OP No.1, at the parking lot, but they refused to help him, in any manner.  Having no other alternative, the complainant reported the matter to the Police, as a result whereof, it (Police) registered F.I.R. No.47 dated 7.3.2010, at Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh.  It was further stated that after the car had been insured, the complainant got affixed Alloys wheels costing Rs.15,000/-, Car Stereo, Central Locking and Gear Lock for Rs.19,745/-. 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 along with the said vehicle. It was further stated that when the claim was lodged by the complainant, before the Insurance Company, it did not pay the price of the aforesaid accessories, and the kit containing the items, though the IDV of the car, was paid to him, by it (Insurance Company). It was further stated that OP-1 was negligent, in taking proper precautions, with regard to the safety of the car parked, in the parking lot, allotted to him. It was further stated that the complainant had to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical harassment on account of theft of his car. It was further stated that, thus, OP-1, was grossly deficient in rendering service. The complainant claimed compensation from OP-1, but he failed to pay the same. 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.             OP No.1, in his reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case, regarding parking of the car, in the parking lot, allotted to him, by the complainant, against consideration. It was denied that the accessories, aforesaid, as also, the tennis kit etc. were lying in the car, when the same was found stolen from the parking lot. It was stated that there was no mention of the accessories,  referred to above, as also, the tennis kit, in the F.I.R. and, as such, the complainant concocted a story with regard to loss of the same, lateron.  It was further stated that, as per Clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between OP-1 and OP-2, with regard to the allotment of parking lot, OP-1 was not liable for loss, on account of  theft of articles lying inside the vehicles. It was further stated that the bills were procured by the complainant, with regard to the aforesaid accessories, and tennis kit, with a view to obtain compensation from the OPs. It was further stated that, since the IDV of the car, had already been paid, by the Insurance Company, to the complainant, he did not suffer any loss. It was further stated that OP-1, was not deficient, in rendering service. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

4.             OP No.2, in its written reply, stated that it had nothing to do with the matter, in question. It was, however, denied that the accessories, were affixed, in the vehicle, and the tennis kit was lying therein, as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that, in accordance with the terms and conditions, settled between OP No.1 and OP No.2, the latter was not liable for the theft of car, from the parking lot. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.2. The remaining allegations, 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, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/ OP-1.

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 once the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the bills produced by the complainant, with regard to the accessories, allegedly got affixed, in the car, and the tennis kit, were not genuine and, on the other hand, forged documents, he was required to be ousted, at the very threshold. He further submitted that the person, who approaches the Consumer Fora, with soiled hands, is not entitled to any relief. He further submitted that since the IDV of the car, had already been paid, by the Insurance Company, to the complainant, and he purchased a new car, on the next day, he did not suffer any loss. He further submitted the appellant was not at all deficient, in rendering service, and the District Forum, was, wrong in awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.7,000/-. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to set aside.

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, against consideration. This parking lot had been allotted to the appellant. It was also not denied by OP No.1, that the theft of car was committed, when it was parked, in the parking lot, aforesaid. The mere fact that the IDV of the car, had already been paid, to the complainant, by the Insurance Company, did not mean that the appellant was absolved of his liability, on account of the gross negligence on his part. No doubt, the bills with regard to the purchase of accessories and affixation thereof,  in the vehicle, as also, purchase of tennis kit, were not held to be reliable, by the District Forum, it did not mean that the same were forged and fabricated by the complainant.  It was the responsibility of the appellant, to ensure that the vehicle, parked in the parking lot allotted to him (OP-1), by the consumer/customer, should be properly guarded, so as to avert the possibility of commission of theft thereof. Had proper precautions, been taken by the appellant, the theft of the vehicle thereof, would not have been committed from the parking lot. Under these circumstances, the appellant was grossly deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. The District Forum, was also right, in holding so. For gross deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellant, a lot of physical harassment and mental agony was caused to the complainant. The appellant/OP No.1, was, thus, liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The District Forum, was thus, right in holding so.

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

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

15.           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.

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

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

Pronounced.

December 1, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg