SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 12.1.2009 passed in complaint case No. 657 of 2008 : Sh. Balbir Singh v. Sh. Sukhpal Singh and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that on 19.7.2007, he parked his scooter in the paid parking area of OP No. 1 at about 4.00 p.m. and paid a sum of Rs. 2 as parking fee vide parking slip (C -1). It was averred by the complainant that on coming back after an hour to the parking lot for picking up his scooter, he was shocked to see that his scooter was not there in the parking lot and was stolen. As per the complainant, on bringing this fact of theft of his scooter to the notice of OP No. 1, no heed was paid to his request consequent to which, the matter was reported to police and FIR No. 205 dated 25.7.2007 (C -2) was registered. It was next averred that the scooter was found by one S.I. Gurmail Singh after 15 days of the theft at Parwanoo and on visiting the spot by the complainant, the scooter was found in a very bad condition with broken parts. As per the complainant, he paid expenses for shifting the scooter from Parwanoo to Chandigarh and the matter was also taken up with the OPs several times and they were requested to compensate the complainant for the loss occurred to the scooter but to no avail. The complainant had alleged that he had suffered lot on account of incurring expenses for leaving his children to school; travelling; Crane charges in Parwanoo; transporting the scooter to Chandigarh and for scooter repairs, etc. Alleging the act of OPs as deficiency in service on their part, the present complaint had been filed.

(3.) THE version of OP No. 1 was that the parking lot of Sector 35 had been taken by it on contract. It denied the averment of approaching the complainant to it at 5.00 p.m. to collect his scooter. It was pleaded by this OP that the complainant never returned uptil 11.00 p.m. to take his scooter and the parking slip of the scooter remained with him and the possibility of the scooter being stolen from some other place could not be there, which led to the registering of the FIR subsequently i.e. on 25.7.2007 after a delay of 7 days. OP No. 1 further pleaded that the complainant had made a false story and it was not at all liable to pay any compensation. It was next asserted that as per registration certificate and repair bills, the scooter was neither owned by the complainant nor the amount of repair was paid by him as the same was in the name of one Sh. J. S. Kang resident of H.No.106, Sector 8, Chandigarh. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.