LEENA MANOJ Vs. SOORANADU RAJASEKHARAN, CHARIMAN CO-OPERATIVE CENTENARY CELEBRATION
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sooranadu Rajasekharan, Chariman Co -Operative Centenary Celebration
Click here to view full judgement.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT -
(1.) THE appellant is the complainant
in OP 54/2005 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appeal has been filed
seeking enhanced compensation and for fixing the liability as jointly and
severally on all opposite parties. The Forum has directed the 3rd
opposite party to pay sum of Rs.10,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1,000/ -
(2.) THE case of the complainant is that Maruti Zen car owned by her and parked at the ear marked parking area of the All India Exhibition
conducted by the Co -operative Centenary Celebration Committee was stolen
on 26.12.04. The 1st opposite party was the Chairman of the Co -operative
Centenary Celebration Committee and the 2nd opposite party was the
General Convener and the 3rd opposite party the contractor of the parking
space. It is stated that the sum of Rs.10/ - was collected as parking fee
at the instance of the 3rd opposite party and ticket, bearing Sl.No.1198
was issued. When she returned at 9 p.m after seeing the exhibition the
car was found missing. The matter was immediately reported to the 2nd
opposite party. The 3rd opposite party and his representative was not
seen anywhere. The matter was also reported to the police and the crime
was registered. The vehicle could not be traced out. The 3rd opposite
party is directly responsible and opposite parties 1 and 2 are
vicariously liable, it is contented. The value of the car was Rs.
(3.) ,00,000/ -. There was a sony music system worth Rs.3,000/ - with a stereo system worth Rs. 1500/ - and a brief case containing cash Rs. 5000/ - and
also passport of the complainants husband. In the car there were 15 audio
cassettes and business promotion materials of the complainant which
included modicare consumable goods worth Rs.2960/ -, business starter kit
worth Rs.1950/ - and printed books and publications worth Rs.10,000/ -. All
the above were lost. The complainant had to travel for her business
promotion work and as the car was lost she had to incur Rs. 5000/ - as
travel expenses. There was loan of Rs.2,00,000/ - from the Corporation
Bank for purchasing the car. The same has also to be repaid. The loss due
to theft of the car is estimated at Rs.3,34,410/ -. The car was insured
for Rs.l,50,000/ -. The complainant claimed the balance amount of
Rs.l,84,410/ - with interest.
3. The 3rd opposite party remained absent.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed joined version contending that the liability is only that was of the 3rd opposite party.
It is the contention of the opposite parties and 2 that they had only
supervisory role. As per condition No.6 of the brochure it is the
liability of the stall holder to make arrangements for the safe custody
of the articles. It is also provided that the stall holders should insure
against theft etc. If the 3rd opposite party has violated any of the
conditions he alone can be responsible. It is also denied that there was
additional fittings as alleged etc.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.