ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, MANIMAJRA vs G.S.CHAWLA

ON a complaint of G.S. Chawla the District Forum-II ordered that Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 1 and Asstt. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation together with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from date of the institution of the complaint till realisation in respect of the lost motor car belonging to the complainant. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 2,200/- as costs was also awarded. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred by Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

BRIEFLY facts of the case are that G.S. Chawla, respondent was at Dhillon theatre alongwith members of his family and a friend on 1.1.1996 to see the night show. He had parked his Maruti motor car No. DDQ-33 with the contractor at the site and paid Rs. 10/- as charges vide slip No. 890 (Annexure C-9). He was shocked when the motor car was found missing and not traceable after the show was over. Suresh Kumar, the contractor also arrived there and he requested that he shall make his efforts to locate the motor car and for this purpose he may be allowed a period of one week. The complainant lodged FIR No. 1 at police station Manimajra (Annexure C-11). On failure of the respondent in tracing and restoring the motor car the complaint was instituted and District Forum-II ordered as mentioned above. After a detailed perusal of the facts and circumstances alongwith the evidence led in the District Forum-II, this Commission is satisfied that Suresh Kumar, contractor was deficient inasmuch as he could not hand over the motor car which was entrusted to him for safe custody for a period of about 3 hours, though he received specified charges from the complainant. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Manimajra, the present appellant, it has been stressed that it had merely lent premises to the contractor and in return received a fixed amount as lease money for one year whether by auction or otherwise. The learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the position of Municipal Corporation in this case was at the most like that of a landlord and the contractor was a kind of tenant or licencee and the landlord could not be held responsible for the deficiency on account of theft or otherwise from the premises lent out for which the contractor alone should have been held responsible. In this case there was one agreement between the Municipal Corporation and the contractor and altogether different between the contractor and the respondent who had deposited his 1988 Maruti motor car for a limited period of 2 to 3 hours on specific payment of Rs, 10/- and the contractor alone was responsible for the safe custody of the vehicle inasmuch as he collected the required charges from the respondent. G.S. Chawla in his affidavit dated 9.4.1999 has told that he has not received any compensation from any Insurance Company as the vehicle was not insured. Consequently the appeal of the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Chandigarh hereby succeeds and the impugned order qua Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Notified Area Committee, the only appellant here is set aside. Appeal disposed of.