M.RajeshKumar,S/o.Late.Muthu, filed a consumer case on 22 Jul 2016 against Sri.Arjun,S/o.Nataraj naidu(Contractor),NMD Colony in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 105/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Oct 2016.
Complaint presented on: 03.06.2014
Order pronounced on: 15.09.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
THURSDAY THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
C.C.NO.105/2014
M.Rajesh Kumar,
Son of Late Mr.Muthu,
No.28, Bajanai Koil Street,
Peirya Kavanam Post,
Ponneri, Chennai – 601 204.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
1. Sri. Arjun,
Son of Mr. Natraj Naidu,
Contractor (Vehicle Parking)
NMD Colony, D/32, Pandian Street,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai – 600 106.
2. M/s. Fun World & Resorts India (Pvt) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Sri. Vinod Kumar Sabharwal,
Palace Grounds (Opp TV Tower),
JC Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 006.
3.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.,
‘Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex’
Wallajah Road,
Chennai 600 002.
| .....Opposite Parties
|
|
Date of complaint : 05.06.2014
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.N.Muthukumaran
Counsel for 1st Opposite party : Ex –parte
Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party : M/s. Sree sun Associates
Counsel for 3rd Opposite Party : M/s. A.Vijayakumar
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant along with his two friends visited Tamilnadu Government Tourist Fair at Island grounds on 09.02.2014 organized by the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party allotted the contract to the 2nd opposite party to organize the fair and accordingly he did it. The Complainant parked his Royal Enfield motor bike bearing Registration No.TN -18- F- 9586 in the fair. He purchased fair entry ticket at Rs.15/- per person and also paid Rs.20/- for parking his motor cycle. The said bike is valued at Rs.1,06,043/-. Around 8.00 p.m to return his home he went to pick his bike and found that it was missing. The employees at the parking slot gave negligent answer when he questioned missing of the vehicle. The Complainant gave a complaint at D1 police station and FIR was registered in crime No.147/2014 on 10.02.2014 under section 379 I.P.C. The 3rd opposite party being the controller have failed to impose any condition to the 2nd opposite party being the principal contractor for organizing the fair who had given sub-contract to the 1st opposite party for managing the parking lot. Therefore the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties are liable for the incident for the negligent of the sub-contractor/1st opposite party. The Complainant sent legal notice dated 18.03.2014 and subsequently on 15.04.2014 to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party on receipt of notice replied him that the 1st opposite party is the sub-contractor for maintenance of vehicle stand and he had also paid Rs.35,00,000/- for the said contractor. Clause 11 of the agreement clearly stated that the responsibility loss of the vehicle fully vested with the 1st opposite party. The negligent act of the 1st opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint to pass an order to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards value of the bike and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation towards negligence and mental agony with cost of the complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The 2nd Opposite Party is the organizer of the 40th India Tourist and Industrial Fair 2014, held at islands Grounds at Chennai and conducting the same for many years without any default and deficiency. The 2nd Opposite Party is no way connected for the loss and not at all responsible to the Complainant for the alleged theft of his motor cycle in the said fair. It is pertinent to mention that as per the Memorandum of Agreement dated 30.01.2014 the 2nd Opposite Party company sub-let the contract of parking to the 1st Opposite Party and as per the clause No: 11 of the said agreement which runs as follows:
“11. And whereas the second party shall be responsible for any loss/theft of helmets/vehicles and accessories and first party is not liable in any manner.”
As per the said clause 2nd Opposite Party Company is no way responsible for the alleged missing of vehicle as claimed by the Complainant herein. As seen on the receipt of the legal notice from the Complainant, the 2nd Opposite Party have forwarded the details and related documents and conveyed him the copy of the said memorandum of Agreement to the Complainant herein and he filed the same along with his Complaint as document. In the instant case the Complainant never lodged the Complaint to the nearby police station immediately on the occurrence of alleged theft in a very suspicious manner he lodged the Complaint of theft only on the next day i.e on 10.02.2014 at around 11.00 a.m. No reason was adduced by him for the said delay of lodging the Complaint to the competent authorities. The Complainant never produced the Insurance Certificate of the said vehicle and in order to defame the 2nd Opposite Party’s company name and fame he chose this alleged theft of vehicle parked in the parking area is totally a false one. The Complainant never filed the report of the police authorities in this regard. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed for following reasons and also in the interest of justice.
3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
It is submitted that the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.(TTDC Ltd.,) has organized the 40th India Tourist and Industrial Fair 2014 at Island Grounds. Chennai – 600 009 for 70 days through the Private event manager of M/s. Fun World and Resorts India (PVT) Ltd., Bangalore – 560 006. The matter of missing of Royal Enfield Motor Bike Classic 350 CC UCE bearing Engine No.U3SCOBEO70760 Chasis No.ME3U3S5CO BEO 70760 and registration TN 18 F 9586 was not brought to the notice of the Manager (Fair) TTDC Ltd., at Island Grounds, Chennai – 600 009. Further, it is submitted that Thiru M.Rajesh Kumar, the Complainant herein has not made any Complaint at the Fair Administrative office at Island Grounds, Chennai – 600 009 on 09.02.2014. The TTDC Ltd. will not be liable, being the principal contractor and the organizer of the Fair for the acts of the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties, as per the agreement deed made with the 2nd Opposite Party.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
5. POINT NO :1
It is an admitted fact that the 3rd opposite party corporation allotted the contract to the 2nd opposite party to organize the Tamilnadu Government Tourist Fair and accordingly he organized in the Island ground in 2014 and on 09.02.2014 the Complainant went to the Fair in his Royal Enfield motor bike bearing No. TN- 18- F- 9586 and Ex.A1 is the registration certificate of the vehicle and he purchased entry Fair ticket of Rs.15/- and also parked his vehicle and obtained Ex.A2 receipt on payment of Rs.20/- for parking the vehicle at 5.10 p.m. and at about 8.00 p.m. he went to pick up the vehicle it was not found and when he questioned the employee in the parking slot, he gave negligent answer and thereafter on the next day the Complainant gave a complaint about the theft of the vehicle at D1 police station and on the basis of the complaint Ex.A3 was registered.
6. The Complainant issued legal notice Ex.A9 to the 2nd opposite party and the same was received by him under Ex.A10. The 2nd opposite party sent Ex.A11 mail including memorandum of the agreement entered between the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party stated in his reply that he gave the sub-contract for the parking of the vehicle to the 1st opposite party and if any loss/theft of the vehicle the 1st opposite party is only liable. The memorandum entered between the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party clearly reveals that the 1st opposite party paid sub-contract amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. Further as per the memorandum of agreement clause 11, the 1st opposite party shall be responsible for any loss/theft of helmet/vehicle and accessories and the 1st opposite party is not liable in any manner. Therefore, as per the agreement in respect of the parking of the vehicle if any loss or theft of the vehicle, the 1st opposite party contractor is only liable. The case in hand the Complainant vehicle was lost or committed theft when the vehicle is in the custody of the 1st opposite party. Therefore, we hold that the 1st opposite party has not taken care to protect the vehicle of the Complainant, inspite of that he had paid Rs.20/- as parking fare under Ex.A2, we hold that the 1st opposite party has committed deficiency in service.
7. The 2nd opposite party is only a organizer of the trade fair and he gave sub-contract to the 1st opposite party for parking the vehicle and the 2nd opposite party is the principal contractor from the 1st opposite party. Since Ex.A11 memorandum of agreement clearly involves the 1st opposite party only liable we hold that the 2nd &3rd opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.
8. POINT NO :2
The Complainant estimated that the bike value is at Rs.1,06,043/-. The Complainant pleaded in the complaint that he had purchased the vehicle on 07.07.2011. Nearly after Two and half years the vehicle was committed theft. However, the Complainant had not filed insurance of the vehicle to know the IDV value of the vehicle. Therefore what could be the exact value of the vehicle on the date of theft of the vehicle, definite evidence is not available? Considering that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2011 and he used the vehicle for more than two and half years we feel that, it would be appropriate to fix the value of the vehicle would be Rs.50,000/- and for the same the Complainant is entitled from the 1st opposite party. The Complainant suffered with mental agony due to loss of vehicle is accepted and in view of the same, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 2nd & 3rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st opposite party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)towards the cost of the vehicle to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.
The above amounts shall be payable to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the 2nd & 3rd Opposite Party is dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15th day of September 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 08.06.2011 Vehicle Registration Certificate
Ex.A2 dated 09.02.2014 Parking Vehicle Ticket
Ex.A3 dated 10.02.2014 FIR
Ex.A4 dated 18.03.2014 Legal Notice
Ex.A5 dated 20.03.2014 Returned cover
Ex.A6 dated 20.03.2014 Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A7 dated 01.04.2014 RTI Letter
Ex.A8 dated 03.04.2014 Reply from Public Information Officer
Ex.A9 dated 15.04.2014 Legal Notice
Ex.A10 dated 19.04.2014 Acknowledgement Card
Ex.A11 dated 22.04.2014 Reply e-mail from the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A12 dated 26.04.2014 Legal Notice
Ex.A13 dated 29.04.2014 Returned Cover
Ex.A13 dated 05.05.2014 Legal Notice through courier and returned cover
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY :
Ex.B1 dated 30.01.2014 Memorandum of Agreement
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY :
……NIL ……
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.