AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 453/2010 against C.C.  416/2009, Dist.. Forum-II, Visakapatnam

Between:

The Executive Officer

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha  Swamy

Vari Devasthanam

Simhachalam, Adivivaram (V)

Visakapatnam Dist.                                    ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                 Op   

And

Chennuru  Suryanarayana Rao

S/o. Late Somaiah, Age: 76 years

R/o. Plot No. 108,

Community Hall Road,

Visalakshinagar,

Visakapatnam-530 043.                             ***                         Respondent/       

                                                                                                Complainant. 

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s.  V. Venugopal Rao

Counsel for the Resp:                                 None

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

*****

1)                This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Devasthanam,  against  the order of the Dist. Forum directing him to pay Rs. 11,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he approached the appellant devasthanam for accommodation to perform Upanayanam of his grandson on 6.5.2009 at the uphill of Simhachalam.    He requested them to allot a spacious cottage  as he expected a large number of invitees.    He was informed  that  Seethamma  cottage  was  allotted  for  his  accommodation  on 5.5.2009 and 6.5.2009 under receipt dt. 7.4.2009. To his surprise the said accommodation was changed on the ground that it was required for some others and therefore alternative accommodation was provided at Prahalada guest house.    When he along with his family members asked the concerned officer to hand over the Prahalada guest house, the devasthanam officials informed that Prahalada guest was  required by some VIPs and they were asked to occupy Ramana Reddy cottage.  It consists of two independent suits each consisting of one single room.  Neither of them was  sufficient and suitable to perform the function.    However, he was constrained to perform the function on the road near the said cottage.  As per religious customs and sentiments the venue should not be changed once the boy and parents sat on the Peetam.   At about 5.30 a.m.  there were deep and dense clods threatening heavy rain.    Due to his old age he fell down due to high B.P.  and anxiety.   He got the invitation cards printed for the invitees to be present at Seethamma cottage.    In view of change in venue they have undergone difficulty and inconvenience in locating the new venue.    Even some of them went away  as they could not locate the new venue.  All this was due to deficiency in service on the part of officials of  the appellant devesthanam.    It was clear harassment and cheating.  Therefore he sought Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 738/- towards refund of charges in all Rs. 50,738/-. 

3)                 The Executive Officer of appellant devasthanam resisted the case.  While denying each and every allegation made therein he alleged that cottages were allotted for accommodation purpose.   They cannot be used for performing functions.   If this practise is allowed the occupants would prepare food and arrange dinner in the cottage itself causing much inconvenience to  other visiting pilgrims.    Despite all this they had allotted Ramana Reddy cottage in place of Seethamma cottage as it was very nearer and there could be no confusion among the invitees.   Shift in the accommodation was due to sudden blockage in the bath-room pipes of Seethamma cottage.   No promise was given that they would provide Prahalada guest house in place of Seethamma cottage.  The complainant violated the devasthanam rules and performed the upanayanam function without intimating them.    Such functions will be performed near open place or Sivalayam where such functions are general allowed.    The complainant celebrated the function as if the cottage is his own by arranging baza bhajantreelu and tents etc., causing much inconvenience to the pilgrims.    Due to lack of accommodation some constructions were taken up by demolishing the existing choultries.   The allotment initially made was tentative and in case of necessity it could be changed.    It was a frivolous litigation and he be directed to pay fine.    He therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

4)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the appellant filed Ex. B1 U.O note to P.R.O. informing the blockage of drain pipeline and the allotments not to be made in Seethamma cottage till it is rectified. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant having allotted Seethamma cottage for two days viz., on 5.5.2009 and 6.5.2009 for performing Upanayanam ought not to have cancelled it and allotted some other room.    At any rate the devasthanam  have two days time to intimate that the repairs have to be made to  Seethamma guest house,  and non-intimation to the complainant would amount to deficiency in service and therefore directed  to pay  compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the Executive Officer, Simhachalam Devesthanam preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that accommodation was provided for stay and not to perform functions.    The very photographs  filed by him show that the complainant had erected tents, cooked foods and he performed the Upanayanam in the premises without prior permission,  contrary to rules.  The shift of guest house was due to blockage of drain and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

7)                 The complainant sent his counter through post on the ground that he was unable to attend the hearing. 

8)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

9)                 It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had booked Seethamma cottage on 7.4.2009 by paying in all Rs. 738/- vide Exs. A1 & A2 receipts.    The complainant alleges that the said cottage was booked in order to perform Upanayanam of his grandson vide invitation card Ex. A5.    On the day when he along with his family members  went to devasthanam they suddenly  changed the venue from  Seethamma cottage  to Ramana Reddy  cottage and as it was too  small a place to  organize the function, he suffered untold misery by erecting tents on the road  attached to the guest house evidenced under Ex. A3 photostat copies  of three photographs. 

10)               Since there was sudden shift of venue,  and it was  not sufficient to organize the function, he and his family members and others suffered untold misery and therefore sought a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.    The Executive Officer of devasthanam resisted the complaint on two grounds i) that the accommodation is meant for stay and not to perform functions like Upanayanam etc.    ii)   sudden shift of venue was  due to blockage of septic tank in Seethamma cottage,  necessitating them to provide alternative accommodation. 

11)               At the outset, we may state that receipts in Ex. A1 & A2 obtained from the devasthanam there was no mention that the said accommodation was taken to perform Upanayanam.    He got it reserved from 8.00 a.m.  of 5.5.2009 to 8.00 a.m. of 6.5.2009 viz., for one day.    He did not make a mention that he intends to perform any function in the said accommodation.  No doubt the complainant has taken it for granted and got published invitation cards Ex. A5 by Akkaraju Venkata Subba Rao mentioning Seethamma cottage as the venue for performing Upanayanam of his son.    No doubt the complainant’s name does not find a place in the invitation card since he alleges that it is his grand son’s Upanayanam. 

12)               The question arises whether he could perform function in the room/cottage given to him.    No doubt the appellant did not file the rules pertaining to usage of cottages.  Assuming without admitting that the complainant could perform such function,  however the photographs show that he not only conducted the function in the cottage,  but also occupied the road by erecting tents and cooked food.  It would undoubtedly cause much inconvenience to the visiting pilgrims.    It is no doubt true that basically the cottages are allowed only for accommodation purpose, and they cannot be used as function halls.  If such practice is allowed it would not  only cause inconvenience to other pilgrims but also affect  hygiene in the surroundings.   At any rate the complainant could not prove that he in fact took the cottage for performing Upanayanam of his grand son.   Even otherwise an alternative accommodation was  given due to unforeseen contingencies, and therefore it cannot be said that it constitutes deficiency in service.  In the first place he never informed the appellant  devasthanam  for  permission  to  conduct   Upanayanam  function.   The complainant did not mention  anything as to the accommodation in Seethamma cottage so as to compare the cottage given at a later point   of time viz., Ramana Reddy cottage.    The appellant by filing Ex. B1 could prove that on the said day there was blockage to the drain pipe and therefore accommodation was changed.    Except alleging that it was given to some VIPs, no evidence whatsoever was placed in order to substantiate the said fact.    If really Seethamma cottage was allotted  to some VIPs',  the complainant could have found out to whom such allotment was given.   When he intends to file the complaint, necessarily he had to gather the evidence.    He cannot make unsubstantiated allegations and claim compensation.   

13)              The complainant, if we may say so, could not prove that these cottages which were taken for accommodation could be converted into function halls or that the pilgrims are entitled to perform such functions in the cottages allotted to them.  Evidently the usage of premises for such functions is nothing but un-authorized.    As we have earlier stated even assuming that such functions could be performed, in the light of the fact that alternative accommodation was given where the function was held, the complainant cannot allege deficiency in service on that score.    In fact the complainant was at fault for performing  the function un-authorizedly.  At least he has not taken permission from the devasthanam authorities  in writing.   There is no proof that  he performed  it after informing them.    When alternative accommodation was provided  and the function went off peacefully it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service  on the part of appellant devasthanam authorities.    We do not see any merits in the complaint. 

14)               In the result the appeal is allowed setting-aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently the complaint is dismissed.  However, no costs.    The appellant is entitled to withdraw  statutory deposit. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER

                                                                             Dt.     18.  08. 2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”