BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

G.S.Chhabra son of late Sh.Bishan Singh, r/o H.No.522, Phase 10, Mohali.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  The Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh.

2.  Sh.Dharamveer, Contractor, Parking Lot, New OPB Block, PGI, C/o Director PGI, Chandigarh.

    {Deleted vide order dated 07.05.2012}

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                   PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL         MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Complainant in person.

Sh.Hitesh Pandit, Counsel for OP No.1.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant visited the PGI on 20.4.2011 and parked his car in the basement of newly built parking block, after paying necessary parking fee to the employee of the parking contractor, against ticket No.00869.  It is stated that while parking the car, one of its wheels fell into manhole, which was uncovered, as a result the car was damaged, but no precautionary measures had been taken by the Engineering Department of PGI or by the contractor. The matter was brought to the notice of Security Officer of OP block and the contractor, who thereafter, he declined to repair the car and stated that it was due to the negligence of Engineering Department of PGI. The complainant sent registered notice to Director, PGI and the contractor vide letter dated 22.4.2011 but to no avail. The complainant approached the authorized dealer of car on 23.4.2011 for its repair and the dealer given an estimate of Rs.3860.50. Hence, this complaint.

2]       OP No.1 filed the reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that the parking area in the basement of multi level parking has been allocated for PGI staff car parking only but the contractor had allowed the complainant to park his car in the basement and charged the fee against ticket No.00869.   It has been further pleaded that the building was constructed by CPWD and there is no toilet/sewer line, hence there is no manhole in the basement. Only slump is made along the outer wall of the basement for collecting fire fighting water, during operation of Sprinkler system, which was duly covered. Moreover, the use of basement area by the contractor for parking private vehicles was unauthorized and as such, the contractor is responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle. It has been pleaded that as per Clause 41 of the Licence Deed, in case of theft/damage to the vehicle or theft of spares of vehicles, the matter may be sorted out amicably by both the parties and in case, the matter is not sorted out, it can be referred to the DDA whose directions/decision shall be final and binding on the licensee. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The name of OP NO.2-Contractor was deleted on the statement made by the complainant vide order dated 07.5.2012. 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for the OP No.1 and have also perused the record. 

5]       The contention of the complainant is that the his car, duly parked in the parking lot of PGI after paying necessary parking fee to the parking contractor, got damaged as it fell in the manhole.  The matter was taken up with OP-PGI with a request to repair the car, but the same was declined.

6]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OP-PGI raised an objection that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP as the complainant has not availed the services of OP.  He also argued that the parking area, whereas the car of the complainant was got parked by the contractor, was allocated to the PGI Staff only.  Thus, the OP is not liable for any loss or damage to the car of the complainant.

7]       We find merit in the contentions of ld.Counsel for the OP.  Since, the complainant neither availed any services of OP nor paid any consideration, hence he is not a consumer qua OP.  Thus, the objection raised by ld.Counsel for OP is fully justified.

8]       Moreover, the car of the complainant was got parked by the contractor, in an area, which was allocated to the PGI Staff Only and not meant for public parking.  Therefore, such parking was totally unauthorized.  As such the OP is not at all liable for any damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant, as alleged.  More so, the name of contractor has already been deleted from the array of parties on the statement given by the complainant, vide order dated 07.05.2012. 

9]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.