DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

 Dated this the 25th day of July 2009.

 Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)

C.C.No.38/2008

Shaji Joseph

S/o. Jeseph

Mazhuvanchery House

Mayilampully

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Adv. P. Sreeprakash)

V/s

K.J. Francis

Proprietor

CASINO Caterers

Kunnathurmedu

Palakkad. - Opposite Party

(Adv. John John)

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H. President

The complaint in short is as follows.

The complainant made arrangements with the Opposite party to provide non vegetarian food consisting of 16 items at the rate of Rs.100/- per plate for 550 persons for his marriage. The opposite party has also made the complainant believe that 550 plates of food will be sufficient to serve 600 persons. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance and the balance was agreed to be paid after the function. Persons belongs to all sections of society attended the function. On the day of marriage the service provided by the opposite party was very poor. Many of the items were not served on all tables. The quantity of the items was not sufficient. When food was served for approximately 410 persons the whole food prepared was over and the opposite party failed to arrange food for the remaining persons. He was not in a position to make alternate arrangements. More than 250 persons including the guests of the brides party left the hall without having food. The irresponsible act of the opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant. When questioned opposite party has admitted his mistake. He was tendered apology in writing in his letter dated 03/02/2008. So the complainant filed this complaint for seeking an order to directing

- 2 -

the Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

The complaint was admitted and sent notice to Opposite party for appearance. Opposite party appeared and filed version. It is true that the complainant had made arrangement with this opposite party for serving food to 550 persons at the rate of Rs.100/- per plate. But the opposite party has not made the complainant believe that 550 plates will be sufficient to serve 600 persons. It is also correct that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid as advance. It is false to say that the service arranged was poor and many of the items were not served on all tables, that the quantity of the items was not sufficient that the food was over when served for 410 persons that the opposite party failed to arrange food for more than 250 persons.

The opposite party had arranged sufficient food for serving 550 persons. Opposite party has arranged 20 persons for serving food. They were all very experienced persons. Seating capacity in the hall was for 130 persons and the opposite party had served for four times with all the seats full. Food for 20 persons was taken to the convent for the inmates also. Food for 30 persons were kept in reserve to serve the family members at last. Some of the relatives of the complainant attempted to take the charge of serving food, but the opposite party objected it for the reason that serving food for a large gathering by inexperienced persons may result in wide spread complaints if not getting the items in time. Complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party. He had paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- when the opposite party went to the complainant's house for getting the balance amount, the complainant and his relatives compelled the opposite party to write a note as they dictated. The said note dated 03.02.2008 is not binding on the respondent. After obtaining the said note from the respondent the complainant and his men sent out the opposite party without paying any amount.

Both parties filed affidavit. Exhibit A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. No docuemnts is marked onthe side of the opposite party.

The issues to tbe considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party?

- 3 -

2. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to provide the agreed quantity of food for the marriage feast of the complainant. 550 plates were agreed to be served at the rate of Rs.100/- per plate. Opposite party made believe the complainant that 550 plates will be sufficient to serve 600 persons. The whole food was over when it was served to approximately 410 persons. Almost more than 250 persons left the place without having food.

Opposite party admits that he was engaged by the complainant to supply and serve food for the marriage of the complainant. 550 plates was agreed to be served at the rate of Rs.100/- per plate. But opposite party has not assured the complainant that 550 plates will be sufficient to serve 600 persons

According to opposite party there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant as he has supplied the agreed quantity of food and served them well. Moreover an amount of Rs.40,000/- is due to the opposite party.

We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and heard both parties. The only document produced by the complainant is the letter alleged to be written by the opposite party appologing for the deficiency of service on his part. The said letter marked as Exhibit A1 was strongly objected by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, it was written under threat and coercion when the opposite party appraoched the complainant for the balance payment.

Exhibit A1 does not reveals the fact that to whom the said letter is addressed. If it is sent by post, no evidence regarding that aspect is produced by the complainant. If the said letter is written and signed from the house of the complainant, the stand of the opposite party that it is written under threat and coercion is more probable. Hence Exhibit A1 is not at all a reliable evidence in support of the case of the complainant.

- 4 -

Admittedly an amount of Rs.40,000/- is due to the opposite party. Complainant has himself stated in the complaint that food was served to 410 persons. Even then amount is due to the opposite party. Without settling the same complainant has directly approached the Forum.

In view of the above discussions we are of the view that complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and has miserably failed to prove a case in his favour. In the absence of convincing evidence we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of July 2009

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Letter from K J Francis, Casino Caters, dated 03.02.08

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent