State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Madhavi W/O S.Chandrasekhar vs Sunil Kumar And Another on 5 October, 2012
BEFORE
A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.
122 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.486 OF 2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDERABAD
Between
S.Madhavi W/o S.Chandrasekhar
aged about 42 years, Occ: Household
R/o 16-7-383, Azampura, Near Sahifa Masjid
Chaderghat Hyderabad
Appellant/complainant
A N D
Sunil Kumar the contractor for
Necklace Road Parking
Inside Laldarwaza near Panchamuki
Hanuman Temple, Laldarwaza Area
Hyderabad-065
The Manager/Authorized Officer
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
Begumpet Hyderabad
Respondent/opposite
parties
Counsel for the Appellant M/s
M.Ramgopal Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents M/s
M.Pratap Reddy (R2)
QUORUM:
SRI
R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) ***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. She along with her cousin Neelima and her children went to necklace road in her car bearing registration number AP 9 N 3981. She parked the vehicle at the parking area and the respondent no.1 collected from her an amount of `10/- towards parking charges and to the effect issued receipt. The appellant and her relatives came back to the car after visiting the exhibition and found the front portion of the car damaged which might have occurred by hit by another vehicle. The appellant enquired about the damage to her car with the employee of the first respondent and she along with her friend s husband, Shailesh reported the matter to the Police.
2. The employee of the first respondent contacted him on phone and promised that they would get the car repaired and they came to V.R.M.Auto Works where the car was taken for the repairs and instructed the garage owner Asif to repair the car. The car was not repaired and the owner, of the workshop informed the appellant that he has not received advance from the first respondent and the appellant tried to contact the first respondent on phone and he could not be contacted. The appellant got repaired the car with M/s Auto Technicians, Malakpet and she incurred an amount of `15,500/- for repairs of the car. The first respondent evaded to accede to the request of the appellant and the appellant got issued notice on 16.05.2008 to the second respondent and Asif . Asif gave reply with evasive answers.
3. The respondents remained exparte.
4. The appellant filed her affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A8.
5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that as per the receipt issued by the first respondent, the respondents are not responsible for damage caused to the car and that no complaint was lodged with the police. The first respondent or the second respondent cannot be held liable to pay the amount to the appellant as the vehicle was kept at the owners risk and the respondents had allotted parking space to the appellant.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum ,the complainant has filed appeal contending that the it is the duty of the respondents to keep the parked vehicles safe at the parking place and that the employee of the first respondent endorsed that the vehicle was damaged when it was parked at the parking area. It is contended that the first respondent promised the owner of the workshop that he would bear the charges for repairing of the car. It is contended that the appellant was under the impression that the first respondent would get repaired her vehicle and as such she had not lodged complaint with the police and that she parked the vehicle and paid the requisite charges expecting safety of her vehicle.
7. The points for consideration are :
1) Whether the appellant is entitled to the repairing charges of the vehicle `15,000/- from the respondents?
2) To what relief?
8. POINT NO.1 The fact beyond any dispute is that on 23.4.2008 the appellant parked her car at the parking area maintained by the second respondent and let on lease to the first respondent and the first respondent had issued receipt for `10/-. The condition mentioned in the receipt are as under:
1.
Rs.10/- for first three hours, every additional hour Rs.10 extra
2. The vehicle has to be locked properly
3. Extra fittings and articles of the vehicle kept at owners risk
4. The token is valid for one visit
5. Night halt not allowed
6. The receipt is valid till 10 p.m.
7. The owner of the vehicle should return the receipt
8. The vehicle are kept at owners risk
9. Both the respondents were set exparte before the District forum and the district forum had observed that the parking charges collected from the appellant pertains to allotment of parking space in the parking lot for which either the first respondent or the second respondent cannot be held responsible and that the first respondent by issuing the receipt does not guarantee safety of the vehicle parked in the parking area. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Forum failed to see that the respondents had not denied the statement or version of the appellant as also the first respondents promise to carry out the repairs of the car by a nearby mechanic, Asif.
10. The appellant has stated that by the time she returned from the exhibition she found her car particularly the front side portion of the car damaged apparently by a hit from another vehicle and she had taken the car for repairs to the nearby garage owner Asif to who the first respondent promised that he would bear the expenditure for repairs of the car. The statement of the appellant coupled with the notice dated 16.5.2008 issued to the respondents and Asif.
11. The appellants husband in his notice dated 16.5.2008 issued to the respondents claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for repair charges of the car and towards damages. Thereafter the appellants husband had again issued notice on 16.10.2008 reiterating the contents of the notice dated 16.5.2008. The owner of VRM Auto Works Asif got issued reply dated 29.5.2008 admitting that the first respondent his employee came to his garage on 24.4.2008 and made enquiry about the repairs to be made to the car of the appellant and the first respondent promised him that they would pay advance for the repairs of the car as they did not turn up to pay the amount, he had not commenced the repairing of the car.
12. There is no contract entered into between the appellant and the first respondent or the second respondent for the respondents to indemnify the amount incurred by the appellant or her husband to get their car repaired at the workshop in Hyderabad or elsewhere. It is not disputed that the car parked at the parking area on 24.4.2008 was damaged and the first respondent at the relevant time was maintaining the parking area at the necklace road. It is not clear as to how the appellant who is not the owner of the car nor did she obtain authorization from the owner of the car can claim damages from the respondent for repairing of the car.
13. The parking fee receipt for `10/- dated 22.4.2008 issued by the first respondent has no recital to pay any damages to the appellant in case the car parked at the parking area gets damaged. The District Forum had referred to clause 8 of the parking fees receipt and observed that the car was parked at the risk of the appellant and as such the appellant cannot seek for damages from the first respondent. It is true, there has been no agreement between the parties enabling the appellant to claim the amount either towards damages or compensation from the respondents.
However, it cannot be denied that the respondent no.1 was negligent and on account of his negligence the car of the appellant was damaged. It can be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first respondent in extending care for the safety of the car.
14. In the absence of any contract with the respondents, the appellant cannot claim for the amount of `15,000/- stated to have been incurred by her to get the car repaired at a workshop at Malakpet, and in view of the deficiency in service rendered by the first respondent on account of whose negligence the car of the appellant had to sustain damage, we feel it that a sum of `3000/- if directed to be paid by the first respondent would meet the ends of justice.
15. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the respodnentno.1/opposite partyno.1 to pay `3,000/- to the appellant together with costs of `2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks. Complaint against the second respondent is dismissed without costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.05.10.2012 KMK*