LEENA MANOJ Vs. SOORANADU RAJASEKHARAN, CHARIMAN CO-OPERATIVE CENTENARY CELEBRATION
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-9-9
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 25,2010

Leena Manoj Appellant
VERSUS
Sooranadu Rajasekharan, Chariman Co -Operative Centenary Celebration Respondents

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/ - as costs.
(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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.