SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant seeking realisation of compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> On 26..12..2004 the complainant accompanied by her family had gone to the exhibition grounds at Asramam to see the All India Exhibition conducted there by the Co-operative Centenary Celebration Committee. The exhibition was being conducted under the presidentship of the 1st opp.party and under the General Convenorship of the 2nd opp.party. The 3rd opp.party has secured the right over the parking space under auction. The conduct of the Exhibition and the safety are vested with the first and 2nd opp.party jointly. The complainant parked her car in the earmarked car parking area and entrusted the same with the agent of the 3rd opp.party who collected Rs.10/- towards parking fee and he had issued a ticket bearing Sl. No.1198. At about 9 p.m. when she returned after seeing the Exhibition the car was found missing . The 3rd opp.party and his representative who was responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the parked vehicle were both not seen anywhere. The complainant had reported the matter immediately to the 2nd opp.party who was personally present in the Exhibition Committee office. Thereafter it was reported to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East Police Station who registered Crime No.1024/04. But the car could not traced out. The complainant’s car was lost while the same was in the custody of the opp.parties and therefore the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable to make good the loss sustained by the complaint. The loss was caused solely due to the gross negligence and dereliction of duty of the 3rd opp.party. Opp.party 1 and 2 are vicariously liable. 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.1,500/- The brief case of complainant’s husband containing cash Rs.5,000/- and his passport was also there in the car.. There were 15 audio cassettes and business promotion materials of the complainant, which included Modicare consumable goods worth Rs.2,960/-, business starter kit worth Rs.1,950/- and printed books and publications worth Rs.10,000/- which were also lost. The complainant was using the car in connection with travel in her business promotion work and hence when the car was lost she had to incurr Rs.5,000/- towards travel expenses regularly. The complainant has purchased the car availing Rs.2,00,000/- obtained as loan from Corporation Bank. The loan is to be repaid. The complainant suffered great shock and mental agony due to the loss of the vehicle for which the complainant is claiming Rs.10,000/-. The estimated loss due to the theft of the car loss is Rs.3,34,410/-. The car was insured for Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the opp.parties are liable to pay balance of Rs.1,84,410/- with interest. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 3rd opp.party remained absent and hence was set exparte. Opp.party 1 and 2 filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act of opp.parties 1 and 2. It is true that the All India Exhibition has been conducted at Asramom under the supervision of 1st and 2nd opp.parties. The allegation that opp.party 1 and 2 are factually and legally responsible for whatever activities associated or connected with the smooth conduct of exhibition is false .The opp.party 1 and 2 collected only the general exhibition fee from those who visited . Parking fees is collected by the 3rd opp.party who has secured the right under auction. The opp.party 1 and 2 had only supervisory role. The space or in the car parked was obtained by the 3rd opp.party and the 3rd opp.party had accepted all the terms and conditions for the conducting of parking space. As per the first condition the auctioneer is bound by the general ules 1 to 15 contained in Exhibition Brochure. As per the condition No.6 it is the liability of the stall holder to make arrangements for the safe custody of the articles. And that the exhibition committee shall not liable for the loss, theft or any accident which may occur. It is also stated that the stall holders should insure against fire, theft etc. On accepting the said conditions the 3rd opp.party filed an application for obtaining the parking space. If the 3rd opp.party has violated any of the condition laid down in clause No. 6 of general condition the 3rd opp.party alone is responsible. The allegation that the car was dragged compensation opp.party 1 and 2 are false and hence denied. The complainant never reported anything to the 2nd opp.party. Hence the question of vicarious liability does not arise for consideration. In a contractual relationship and it is disputed to be decided a Civil Court the car is not having a value of Rs. 3,00,000/- The allegation that the car was having music system worth Rs.3,000/- and Stereo system worth Rs.1,500/- is fully false . The complainant is trying to obtain undue benefit from the 3rd opp.party. The allegation that articles worth Rs.24,410/- lost along with the care is false and hence denied. The allegations that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for shock and mental agony from the 1st and 2nd opp.parties as she did not suffered any shock or mental agony if at all. She is entitled to get at all opp.parties is responsible. Hence opp.parties 1 and 2 are prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Complainant is entitled to get compensation as claim<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P7 are marke<br /> No oral or documentary evidence by the opp.party.<br /> <br /> Points: 1 to 3<br /> <br /> There is no dispute that an All India exhibition was conducted at the Asramam Maidan by the All India Exhibition Committee under the Presidentship of the 1st opp.party and the General Convenorship of the 2nd opp.party in the year 2004. It is also not disputed that the right to collect fee from the packing area was auctioned in favour of opp.party 3 who was collecting fee from the owners of the vehicles who came to see the exhibition and packed their vehicles in that parking area. The complainant’s case that she had gone to see the exhibition on 26.12.2004 and parked her car in that parking area is proved by Ext.P2 and P2[a]. Her car bearing registration No.KL-2M.1549 parked there was stolen away from the parking area on that day is established by Ext.P3 and P6. The learned counsel for the complainant would argue that her car was stolen away while in the safe custody of the opp.parties due to the negligence of the opp.parties. Opp.parties 1 and 2 would contend that they have auctioned the right over the parking area to opp.party 3 and so they are not liable as per condition No.6 in the General Rule of brochure of exhibition.<br /> <br /> The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the entrustment of the car with opp.party 3 is established by Ext.P2 but the opp.parties failed to prove that they have taken necessary precaution and care required under law and therefore they are liable to compensate her. According to him the entrustment of the car with opp.party 3 for parking in the parking area is bailment and the bailee is liable for the loss of the vehicle and in support of his contention he has relied on the decision reported in AIR 1991 Dehi 298. In the above decision it was held in an identical case that theentrustment of a vehicle in the parking area is bailment and when the bailee failed to show having exercised reasonable care as a man of ordinary precedence for the safety of the vehicle would be liable for its loss. The decision is squarely applicable in this case.<br /> <br /> It has come in evidence that the complainant’s car was having insurance coverage and she got insurance amount in connection with the theft of the same evidenced by Ext.P7. It goes without saying that the insurance coverage is applicable to the car as well as its accessories and the amount awarded by the Insurance Company has already been received by the complainant. No material worth believable, was produced to establish that the other articles referred to in the complaint were inside the car at the time of theft. Therefore she is not entitled to get the balance amount claimed in the complainant. However we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the side of opp.party.3 and so she is entitled to get reasonable compensation for deficiency in service on the side of opp.party3. Point found accordingly. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opp.party 3 to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. <br /> <br /> <br /> I n d e x<br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Manoj<br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – R.C. Book of vehicle lNO.KL2m.1549<br /> P2. – Par pass No.1198<br /> P3. – FIR No.1024/2004<br /> P4. – Copy of Advocate Notice dt. 19.1.2005<br /> P5. – Postal receipts and A/d cards<br /> P6. – Report of East Police Station<br /> P7. – Cheque from National Insurance Company.<br /> List of oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party: NIL<br />