KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 471/2009 JUDGMENT DATED:28..05..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT N. Radhakrishnan, T.C.No.18/453-1, Karthika, : APPELLANT Elanjimoodu Lane, Kohar Road, Edapazhanji Road, TVPM. (By Adv:Sri.K.Muraleedharan Nair) Vs. 1.The Divisional Railway Officer, Divisional Office, Southern railway, Thycaud, TVPM. (By Adv:Sri.V.K.Anilkuar) 2.Jessy, : RESPONDENTS Pattapurayidam House, Perumkuzhy, Chirayinkil. (Conractor, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram). 3.Lt.Col. G.Sanjay, Jaya Bhavan, Chettikulangara, Vanchiyoor, TVPM. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC:382/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands allowed directing the 2nd opposite party/licensee of the parking lot to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- towards the price of the motor cycle stolen and a compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Interest at 12% is ordered if the amount is not paid within 2 months of the date of receipt of the order. 2. First complainant who is the owner of the Yamaha Motor Cycle is the appellant. The appeal is filed dissatisfied with the quantum of the amounts ordered to be paid. It is the case of the complainants that the vehicle of the 1st complainant was taken by his nephew the 2nd complainant to the Thiruvananthapuram central railway station on 20/8/2000 at 4.30 am and parked the vehicle in the registered parking area after paying the requisite fee and receiving a token bearing No:2008. When he returned to the spot with the token on the same day it was found that the vehicle is missing. The matter was reported to the police and FIR lodged. The vehicle could not be traced so far. It is alleged that the loss is due to the negligence of the opposite parties ie the railways and the licensee of the parking lot. 3. The 1st opposite party/railways has contended that the entire responsibility vested with the 2nd opposite party/licensee who was responsible for managing the parking area. The parking charges are collected by the licensee. It was also contended that there is also privity of contract between the complainant and 1st opposite party. 4. The 2nd opposite party has contended that he is responsible only for managing the parking area. Vehicles are parked in the area on payment of Rs.2/- as parking fee for a specified period. According to him he has taken the maximum care, security and safety of the vehicles parked inside the parking stand. It is also pointed out that in the parking receipt given to the complainant it is specifically mentioned that “the vehicles are parked at your own risk only”. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and that of the 2nd opposite party and Exts.P1 to P11 and D1. 6. The Forum has held that the 2nd opposite party/licensee is liable and awarded a sum of Rs.4000/- as the price of the vehicle. 7. It is the contention of the appellant that both the opposite parties ought to have been made liable and that the quantum of compensation awarded is too meager for the vehicle. 8. It is noted in the order of the Forum itself that as per Ext.D1 terms of license between the railways and the licensee in clause 7. It is provided that licensee shall have insurance for the vehicles against loss, theft or damages etc and other accidents. It is also provided that the licensee shall pay a premium thereon regularly to the insurance company and submit the receipts to the railway administration along with the Xerox copy of such insurance policy premium receipt for verification. It is also mentioned therein that the licensee will make good the loss due to theft, fire, damage etc to the owners of the vehicle. It is specifically mentioned that the licensee will get the insurance policy renewed from time to time during the contract period. The complainant has produced Ext.P3 token/slip for the parking of the vehicle. The licensee ought not to have released the vehicle without insisting for the parking slip. In the light of the above provision in the contract we find that the liability of the licensee is evident. We find that the 1st opposite party/railways has also to be responsible for the incident as they have not insisted for the compliance of clause 7 of the license agreement. The parking lot is owned by the railways. It is for the railways to see proper compliance of the terms of license. The absence of insurance policy was occasioned on account of the negligence of the railways primarily. Hence we hold that the railways and the licensee are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 9. As can be seen from the records produced the vehicle was purchased on 26/6/1991. It is Yamaha RX 100 1991 model motor cycle. The purchase price vide the receipt produced is Rs.26,700/-. The 1st complainant purchased the same from the original owner. The theft took place on 20/8/2000. The vehicle was 9 year old. The amount of compensation towards the price of the vehicle to be paid at Rs.4000/- appears to be quire disproportionate. We find that it would be reasonable to order a sum of Rs.15,000/- to be paid towards the price of the vehicle. The opposite parties would also be liable to pay interest at 9% from the date of theft ie 20/8/2000. The order to pay cost of Rs.1000/- is sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from 20/8/2000 and cost of Rs.1000/-. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties would be liable to pay interest at 15% from the date of this order. The office will forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
