KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 416/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.9.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Leena Manoj, : APPELLANT w/o Manoj.K., Karuvallil House, Pattathanam.P.O., Kollam. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs. 1. Sooranadu Rajasekharan, : RESPONDENTS Chairman, Co-operative Centenary Celebration, All India Exhibition Grounds, Asramam, Kollam, Residing at Lekshmi Nivas, Karamcode.P.O., Chanthannoor. 2. M.H.Sharrier, General Convenor, Co-operative Centenary Celebration, All India Exhibition Grounds, Asramam, Kollam, having other address as President, Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Kollam. 3. Premlal, Parking Contractor, Co-operative Centenary Celebration, All India Exhibition Grounds, Asramam, Kollam, Residing at Vrindavanam, Asramam, Kollam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.54/2005 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appeal has been filed seeking enhanced compensation and for fixing the liability as jointly and severally on all opposite parties. The Forum has directed the 3rd opposite party to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that Maruti Zen car owned by her and parked at the ear marked parking area of the All India Exhibition conducted by the Co-operative Centenary Celebration Committee was stolen on 26.12.04. The 1st opposite party was the Chairman of the Co-operative Centenary Celebration Committee and the 2nd opposite party was the General Convenor and the 3rd opposite party the contractor of the parking space. It is stated that the sum of Rs.10/- was collected as parking fee at the instance of the 3rd opposite party and ticket bearing Sl.No.1198 was issued. When she returned at 9pm after seeing the exhibition the car was found missing. The matter was immediately reported to the 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party and his representative was not seen anywhere. The matter was also reported to the police and the crime was registered. The vehicle could not be traced out. The 3rd opposite party is directly responsible and opposite parties 1 and 2 are vicariously liable, it is contented. The value of the car was Rs.3,00,000/-. There was a sony music system worth Rs.3,000/- with a stereo system worth Rs.1500/- and a brief case containing cash Rs.5000/- and also passport of the complainant’s husband. In the car there were 15 audio cassettes and business promotion materials of the complainant which included modicare consumable goods worth Rs.2960/-, business starter kit worth Rs.1950/- and printed books and publications worth Rs.10,000/-. All the above were lost. The complainant had to travel for her business promotion work and as the car was lost she had to incur Rs.5000/- as travel expenses. There was loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Corporation bank for purchasing the car. The same has also to be repaid. The loss due to theft of the car is estimated at Rs.3,34,410/-. The car was insured for Rs.1,50,000/-The complainant claimed the balance amount of Rs.1,84,410/- with interest. 3. The 3rd opposite party remained absent. 4. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed joined version contending that the liability is only that was of the 3rd opposite party. It is the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that they had only supervisory role . As per condition No.6 of the brochure it is the liability of the stall holder to make arrangements for the safe custody of the articles. It is also provided that the stall holders should insure against theft etc. If the 3rd opposite party has violated any of the conditions he alone can be responsible. It is also denied that there was additional fittings as alleged etc. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts. P1 to P7. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. 6. The Forum has held that only the 3rd opposite party/auctioneer of the parking area as liable. It is found that the complainant has already received amount from the insurance company for the loss of car and of the accessories. All the same a sum of Rs.10000/- was allowed to be recovered from the 3rd opposite party. We find that as per Ext.P7 produced by the complainant she has received sum of Rs.1,79,500/- from the National Insurance Co. in full and final settlement for the theft of the car. The appellant has produced the additional document in the appeal which is the copy of the invoice of the Motor car in the name of the complainant dated 29.9.01. The total price of the car noted therein is Rs.3,59,255.79/-. The theft is dated 26.12.04. The car has been stolen after about 3 ½ years of purchase. It is the contention of the appellant that the car would have fetched a much higher amount as Maruti Zen Car is in great demand. We find that the complainant has not adduced any independent evidence to substantiate her case that the value of the car would have been higher than the amount for which the same was insured. As noted above she has already received a sum of Rs.1,79,500/- from the insurance company. Hence we find that no interference in this regard with respect to the finding of the Forum is called for. All the same we find that the opposite parties/respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation ordered by the Forum below. Opposite parties 1 and 2 has produced the brouchure for the exhibition wherein under the heading general rules it is mentioned that the stall holders should insure against theft etc. It is the duty of opposite parties 1 and 2 to see that the above rule mentioned in the brouchure is fulfilled. It is not disputed that it is after taking tickets and also after paying the parking fee that the complainant visited the exhibition organized by opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are vicariously liable. Hence the order of the Forum making the 3rd opposite party alone liable is set aside. The order of the Forum is modified to the effect that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation and cost ordered by the Forum. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of the order of the Forum ie 30.9.08. 7. The appeal is allowed in part as above. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with copy of this order. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps |
