STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/412/2023 null S VELUSWAMI PRESENT ADDRESS - 255/5 TH STREET GANDHIPURAM COIMBATORE 2 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MUHAMMED RAFI PRESENT ADDRESS - AMBALATHUVEETIL HOUSE UROOB NAGAR PALLAPRAM PONNANI SOUTH P O MALAPPURAM 679583 ,KERALA.

THE CHAIRMAN PUBLIC GRIEVIANCES PRESENT ADDRESS - ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL MANAGER CHENNAI DIVISION ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 412/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.12.2024 (Against the Order in C.C. 191/2020 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI.AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANT:

th S. Veluswami, S/o Subbu, 252/5 Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-2, Tamil Nadu, represented by Power of Attorney Holder-Aneesh C.P., Cherrparambil House, Kizhakoottupadi, Perinkannoor P.O., Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad-679 535.

(By Adv. S.K. Pradeep and Adv. A. Vasudev)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Muhammed Rafi, S/o Abdul Azeez, Ambalathuveettil House, Uroob Nagar, Pallapram, Ponnani South P.O., Malappuram-679 586.

2. The Chairman, Public Grievances, Additional Divisional Manager, Chennai Division, Southern Railway Divisional Office, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT nd The appellant is the 2 opposite party in C.C. No. 191/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short “the District Commission”), who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant on account of the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant in the matter and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation st costs. The 1 respondent is the complainant therein.

2. The complainant is running an educational institution. As part of his job, he had to travel to Ernakulam on 12.03.2019 from Kuttipuram railway station. The complainant parked his motor bike bearing No. KL 54/J-7780 at the pay and park nd ground of the 2 opposite party. After his work, when the complainant came back to Kuttipuram pay and park ground, the complainant found that his bike was missing. Even after making earnest efforts, the complainant could not trace out the bike. In the said circumstances, the complainant lodged information to the Police, pursuant to which the Kuttippuram Police registered a crime. After completing the investigation, the Police filed the final report before the court stating that the bike could not be traced out. It is contended that it was due to the negligent act of the opposite parties that the bike was lost. The complainant had suffered loss, injury, harassment and mental agony due to that. In the said circumstances, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as litigation costs, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

st

3. The 1 opposite party submitted a version denying all the averments in the st complaint. It was further contended that the 1 opposite party was not responsible for the theft of the vehicle from the pay and park ground. As per the agreement between st nd nd the 1 and the 2 opposite parties, the 2 opposite party alone was responsible for nd the safe custody of the vehicle parked. The 2 opposite party must also indemnify the st st

1 opposite party in the event of sustaining any loss by the 1 opposite party due to nd nd the act of the 2 opposite party. If at all there was any deficiency in service, the 2 opposite party alone was liable.

nd

4. The 2 opposite party filed separate version denying the allegations in the nd complaint. It is contended by