Complainant K.R.Nandakumar, S/o H.R.Rangaswamy, Vishveswaraiah Extension, Sri rangalakshmi Stone Building, Salagame Road, Hassan-573201. (By Sri.P.S.D’Costa., Advocate)


Opposite Parties

1. Manager, M/s GRS Fantasy Park, KRS Road, Mysore-560016.
2. M/s GRS Fantasy park, Registered Office, Baliga Investment Pvt. Ltd., No.4, I Floor, Lakshminarasimha Complex, 4th Main, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore-560002. (By Sri.O.Shama Bhat., Advocate)

Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 03.03.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : 01.04.2009 Date of order : 28.04.2009 Duration of Proceeding : 27 DAYS PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri.D.Krishnappa, President

1. The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint against the opposite parties in brief is, that he on 30.12.2008 visited opposite parties park, which is running a Fun World for entertainment at Mysore along with his wife by paying Rs.975/- as entry fee and he had parked his car in the parking area provided by the opposite parties by paying separate fee of Rs.20/- for parking. That he had kept Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- and a Nokia Camera Mobile phone worth Rs.7,550/- in the car. That he after visiting the park, came out and entered the car he found the cash and mobile phone were missing and the he gave a complaint to the police on the same day. Thereafter on 12.01.2009 he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding return of his lost cash and article, but was of no use, therefore has prayed for awarding damages of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- with interest.

2. The opposite parties have entered appearance through their advocate and filed version, contending that they have provided parking space inside the park and charging fee only as fee for providing parking slot and that is not the fee for the security of the vehicle. They have further stated that they have displayed a board at the parking slot notifying that they are not responsible for theft of vehicle or articles that may be kept in the vehicle, they are not responsible for any valuables kept in the car and they have provided separate facility to keep the valuables by the customers by providing separate lockers on payment. It is further contended that they have also issued brochure to the customers giving all instructions to the customers and also making known the customers that they are not responsible for theft of vehicles or valuables kept in the vehicle and cust9omer can avail locker facility for keeping their valuables and denying that the complainant has lost the cash and valuable and further denying deficiency at their end have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Yogeesh Dange for opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced an acknowledgement for having given a police complaint regarding theft of the cash and article, bill for having had purchased a mobile set, document to show that he is the Principal of a Training Institute, a brochure which had been given by the opposite parties to the complainant containing the details of the facilities available and a copy of the legal notice he got issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have produced full set of brochure, which they are giving to the customers who visit their park. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise. 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties are liable for the security of the valuables he had kept inside the car and that the opposite parties have failed to provide security for the valuables he had kept inside the card and thereby caused deficiency in their service?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Our findings are as under:-
Point no.1 : In the Negative.
Point no.2 : See the final order.


6. Point no. 1:- The opposite parties as evident from version and affidavit evidence have not denied in this complainant with his wife visiting the amusement park on 30.12.2008. But, the opposite parties have denied their liability to keep a watch on the vehicles and also the valuables kept in the vehicle by further contending that they charge Rs.20/- as charges for providing place for parking of the car and they do not take the responsibility for the safety of the valuables kept in the car. It is further contended by them that they have displayed the instructions Board at the parking place and clearly got this information printed in the brochure supplied to each of the customers by further indicating that locker facilities are available for keeping the valuables of the customers and therefore have contended that they are not at fault and they are not accountable to the complainant. The complainant in the affidavit evidence denied that there was display of any board displaying the non-accountability of the opposite parties regarding security of the vehicles parked or to the valuables kept in the car. However, the complainant has not denied the receipt of brochure supplied by the opposite parties at the time of entering the park, which contain all the facilities available in the park and also conditions of parking and regarding safety of the valuables. The brochure produced by the complainant himself discloses that the opposite parties have got printed useful hints in this brochure for information of the customers, in which it has been instructed to the customers to keep their valuables in the locker provided by the opposite parties on paying Rs.25/-. The second sheet of the brochure discloses certain conditions while getting into the fantasy park, in which there is separate noting as Parking which reads “A spacious parking lot accommodates cars, two wheelers and coaches, parking will be at owners risk”. The opposite parties therefore relying upon these terms and conditions denied their liability to the complainant.

7. The complainant in the affidavit evidence though denied display of board, but has not denied the receipt of this brochure and the contents with regard to parking conditions and safety of valuables. Therefore, when the complainant was made known as to how he should take care of valuables he should have availed the other facilities provided by the opposite parties for security of the valuables. Further it could be seen that the complainant has in doubt has stated that he had kept about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and a Nokia mobile set in their car and they were stolen. It is even not his case that when he parked the car with the valuables he brought it to the notice of the person who was managing the park or authority concerned about valuables he had kept in the car. He could have by so brining to the knowledge of the parking management or to the opposite parties taken special care either to safeguard the valuables kept in the car or to avail other safety like locker, but he did not do so. When the complainant did not bring to the notice of the management about valuables kept in the car, we do not think that he can blame the management of the opposite parties for the loss of valuables kept in the car.
Further in the course of arguments it was submitted that doors of the car, window glasses including the lock of the doors were intact and were not desorted with. It is also submitted that on the complaint given by the complainant to the concerned police, they conducted spot mahazer also. Even in the course of spot mahazer nothing is indicated in having had seen any window glasses broken or opening the doors by removing the lock to attribute that there had been theft of that valuables kept in the car on the parking slot. Therefore, it remains as a mystery as how and where theft or missing of valuables had occurred. The complainant basically as indicated in the brochure of opposite parties had not taken care to securely keep his valuables nor he had brought it to the notice of the opposite parties management about the valuables he had kept in the car, so that the opposite parties if at all had taken responsibility of watching over the valuables to keep a special vigilance. The contention of the opposite parties that they charge only Rs.20/- as fee for using their place for parking the car and no charges for security of the vehicles or valuables has remained unrebutted. As such, for thesereasons we are constrained to hold that the complainant has not proved that the opposite parties had taken the responsibility for providing security to the valuables he had kept in the car and when that is not proved the question of the opposite parties causing deficiency do not arise for consideration. As the result, the complaint is in our view is liable to be dismissed. Thus, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for any relief accordingly we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order:-

ORDER 1. The Complaint is dismissed.