BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL FORUM
At MUMBAI

COMPLAINT UNDER

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019

C.C. No. Of 2021

UNDER SEC. 47 OF COPRA, 2019

Mr. Roshan .…………….………………………………………………..PETITIONER

v.

Matrix Parking Service Ltd……………....…………………………………. RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CONSUMER FORUM

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................ii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED....................................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................iv

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................vi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................vii

PRAYER................................................................................................................................viii

i
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts .26th edition 2012,

LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble District Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction in this matter under the followings
sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

(1) That the present complaint filed under section 47 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 (hereinafter “the Act”) against the Opposite Party, Matrix Parking Services
Ltd. (MPSL) at whose parking space had the complainant parked his Rolls Royce on
January 23, 2021, and had kept the car at that particular space for 10 days.
Unfortunately due to heavy rains on the 10th day and due to the act of omission on the
part of the opposite party in getting the wall repaired, the roof under which the car
was parked gave way and broke off on the car, completely destroying it.
(2) That the complainant is a law abiding citizen of India, who availed services
under who availed the services from the Opposite Party for a consideration, and is,
therefore, a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(7)(ii) of the Act. The
Complainant is a resident of Mumbai, Maharashtra.
(3) That the Opposite Party, Matrix Parking Services Ltd. (MPSL) is a Private
undertaking based in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The Opposite Party owns parking spaces
and the concerned multi-storey car park.

(4)

ii
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

QUESTION I:

Whether the complaint brought before the State Consumer Forum is

QUESTION II:

Whether negligence by MPSL has occurred.

QUESTION III:

Whether MPSL is liable for the product negligence which has occurred.

iii
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That the Complainant, parked his Rolls Royce in a multi-storey car park owned by
Matrix Parking Services Ltd. (MPSL) in Mumbai. was content to park his car there as
he had parked his car at MPSL many times over the past few years. There is a barrier
and automatic ticket machine at the entrance to the MPSL car park; there is also a sign
which reads: “Parking is subject to terms and conditions”. entered the MPSL car park
and took a ticket from the machine. On the rear of the ticket was printed: “For the
terms and conditions of parking, please see the notice board situated on the fifth floor.”
2. That the complainant did not read what was printed on the ticket and simply put it in
his wallet. In very small letters at the bottom of the fifth-floor notice board, it was
written:
“MPSL excludes all liability for damage to car owners’ property, howsoever caused,
as well as liability for any other loss including economic loss. Anyone leaving their
vehicle in the car park for more than 10 days will be charged up to 5,000 per day, in
addition to the usual parking charges.”
3. That the complainant never went to the fifth floor and therefore did not read the notice,
even though appears prominently the above text from the fifth-floor notice board also
appears prominently on MPSL’s website. left his Rolls Royce in the car park for 10
days. On the tenth day, when it was raining very heavily, the roof of the MPSL car
park collapsed onto the complainant’s car, completely destroying it. MPSL was aware
of defects to the roof and the risk of it collapsing, and had made some repairs to the
roof in December 2020, but the repairs clearly proved insufficient.
4. That deficiency of service is defined as any inadequacy in the quality, nature, and
manner of performance which is required to be maintained under any law or
undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract, under Section 2(11) (i) of the
same act, this section specifically deals with the provision of any act of negligence or
omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.
5. That the complainant in good faith, parked the vehicle in car park due to his faith on
the opposite party taking appropriate care of his vehicle due to a duty of care existing
between both the parties. The opposite party on their own volition decided not to repair
such a latent damage to the wall, signifying a lack of care on their part to manage the
parking space and make it safe for its consumers so that they may be comfortable

iv
 while parking their vehicles in the parking space created and managed by the opposite
party.
6. The opposite party should’ve taken note of the cracks in the wall, which gave way due
to the heavy rainfall. If the opposite party had worked to ensure, that the walls were
properly repaired and there was no chance of it collapsing on anything. The opposite
party knew about the weakness of the structure of the wall, yet omitted in repairing the
wall.
7. That the opposite party had claimed the exclusion of liability, it should be observed
that it shouldn’t be open for the opposite party to contract out of the standard of care
required to be taken by it as a Bailee under the India Contract Act. The opposite part
could have, disclaimed liability towards vehicles of guests on account of a loss
occasioned by a third party, contributory negligence or unforeseen circumstances, but
this couldn’t have been possible due to the fact that it was their decision in omitting to
take care of the damaged wall. Noting that the opposite party had failed to prove that
the loss of the complainant’s car was not on account of fault or negligence on its part,
hence it must be noted that they should have taken requisite care towards the car bailed
to it.
8. That the complete exclusion from any liability completely goes against, the ideals and
principles of consumer protection as a way to get justice to consumers so that they are
able to get their grievances properly redressed and they do not feel taken advantaged
of.
9. That the Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present matter as the Opposite Parties are located within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission.
10. That the cause of action for the present complaint has also arisen within the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission. As per Section 47, this court has the
jurisdiction to hear matters where the value of goods and services along with
compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000.
11. The quantum of monetary relief/compensation/damages sought, exceeding Rs.
1,00,00,000 is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission.
12. That the present complaint is within the period of limitation provided under the Act as
the cause of action arose on DD.MM.YYYY

v
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue I

Whether the complaint brought before the District Consumer Forum is maintainable.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that present complaint is maintainable
against MPSL since there is a consumer-service provider relationship between them and duty
under implied contract is owed to the plaintiff.

Issue II

Whether service providing negligence has occurred.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, negligence has occurred during service
providing because MPSL did not repair the roof completely inspite of knowing that it was
still weak.

Issue III

Whether MPSL is liable for negligence which has occurred.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, MPSL is liable according to the
consumer service provider relationship.

vi
 PLEADINGS

I . WHETHER NEGLIGENCE HAS OCCURRED.

Matrix parking service ltd. has committed the act of negligence because being a service
providing company they were expected to take maintenance of their property. They should
have known that the improper repairs of the roof would be danger in future.

II. Damages to be awarded

The principle of service negligence put liability on the service provider by not providing
enough care resulting in breach of their duties and harming the property of their consumers.

Therefore, in this case MPSL is liable for being negligent in providing good parking service
since no accurate measures were taken by MPSL for finding out the main problem and
further they did not repair it properly treat, giving scope for falling of roof thus leading to car
damage. Therefore , MPSL should be directed to pay the compensation to Mr. Roshan

vii
PRAYER

In the light of the questions raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

1. Hold MPSL liable for negligence and deficiency of service, and order provision of
compensation to the aggrieved.

2. Award compensatory damages to be paid by MPSL for negligence as service

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

viii