SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. SHASHI KANT WADHAWAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No. 1) and directed OP -1 (now appellant), as under:

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant was the owner of car bearing Regd. No. CH -04 -A -1470 (Maruti Swift). The said car was insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, vide Policy (Annexure C -11), for the period from 7.12.2009 to 6.12.2010. The Insured Declared Value (IDV), of the said vehicle was Rs. 4,25,000. It was stated that on 7.3.2010, the complainant had parked his car, in the parking lot of Sector 8, Chandigarh, where he and his family members had gone for a meal at K.F.C. Restaurant, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The said parking lot had been allotted to OP No. 1 (Contractor), by OP No. 2 (Municipal Corporation). The complainant paid parking fees to OP No. 1, who issued parking slip (Annexure C -2) to him. It was further stated that after having meals, when the complainant returned to the parking lot, he found his car missing. He immediately contacted the employees of OP No. 1, at the parking lot, but they refused to help him, in any manner. Having no other alternative, the complainant reported the matter to the Police, as a result whereof, it (Police) registered F.I.R. No. 47 dated 7.3.2010, at Police Station, Sector 3,Chandigarh. It was further stated that after the car had been insured, the complainant got affixed Alloys wheels costing Rs.15,000, Car Stereo, Central Locking and Gear Lock for Rs. 19,745. It was further stated that at the time of theft, a kit containing 2 tennis rackets, one track suit of Adidas Company, Skipping rope and a pair of tennis shoes of Adidas Company, were lying in the car, which were also stolen along with the said vehicle. It was further stated that when the claim was lodged by the complainant, before the Insurance Company, it did not pay the price of the aforesaid accessories, and the kit containing the items, though the IDV of the car, was paid to him, by it (Insurance Company). It was further stated that OP -1 was negligent, in taking proper precautions, with regard to the safety of the car parked, in the parking lot, allotted to him. It was further stated that the complainant had to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical harassment on account of theft of his car. It was further stated that, thus, OP -1, was grossly deficient in rendering service. The complainant claimed compensation from OP -1, but he failed to pay the same. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

(3.) OP No. 1, in his reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case, regarding parking of the car, in the parking lot, allotted to him, by the complainant, against consideration. It was denied that the accessories, aforesaid, as also, the tennis kit etc. were lying in the car, when the same was found stolen from the parking lot. It was stated that there was no mention of the accessories, referred to above, as also, the tennis kit, in the F.I.R. and, as such, the complainant concocted a story with regard to loss of the same, lateron. It was further stated that, as per Clause 23 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between OP -1 and OP -2, with regard to the allotment of parking lot, OP -1 was not liable for loss, on account of theft of articles lying inside the vehicles. It was further stated that the bills were procured by the complainant, with regard to the aforesaid accessories, and tennis kit, with a view to obtain compensation from the OPs. It was further stated that, since the IDV of the car, had already been paid, by the Insurance Company, to the complainant, he did not suffer any loss. It was further stated that OP -1, was not deficient, in rendering service. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.