IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday the 31^st day of August, 2011

Filed on 24.02.2011

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.60/11

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties-

Sri.Siju.K.S,                                   1.         The Commissioner, Thiruvithamkoor

S/o P.Sukhadev,                                         Devaswom Board, Devaswom Building,

Ayyappanivas,                                            M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram.         

Vadackal.P.O.,                                         

Ambalappuzha Thaluk,                   2.         The Administrative Officer, Ambalappuzha

Pin-688 003.                                              Devaswom, (Thiruvithamkoor Devaswom Board)

                                                                  Ambalappuzha, Alappuzha District.

                                                                  (By Adv.Radhakrishnan Nair)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant, on 22^nd February 2011 ordered 25 liters of 'Palpayasam' to celebrate the 1^st birth day of his daughter on 23^rd February 2011. For the same, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) at the rate of Rs.60/-(Rupees sixty only) per litre before the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant had obtained a receipt to the said effect. On the very next day, viz. on 23^rd February 2011 at 12.30 pm, the complainant arrived at the temple premises for collecting the palpayasam which he ordered and paid in advance. The complainant was caused to hang around there till 3 pm only to be told that mere two liters of payasam is available for the complainant. The complainant witnessed the holy payasam being distributed unauthorizedly. The complainant learned that the 'divine drink' was being sold in black market. The omission and commission of the opposite parties caused unspeakable mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that they used to collect milk from 'Milma' and from other local sources. But on the material day, consequent to unforeseen reasons, there arose a scarcity of milk which is being used for the preparation of 'palpayasam'. Resultantly, the opposite party was constrained to cut short the quantity of 'payasam' proportionately for the proper distribution of the same. Similarly, the opposite party was very much prepared to provide proportionally available amount of 'payasam' to the complainant. The complainant outrightly rejected the offer without any basis, the opposite parties allege. According to the opposite party, the Devaswom never resorted to unscrupulous or unethical strategies. The complaint has no basis. The complaint is only to be dismissed.

2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant filed proof affidavit and the document Exbt. Al was marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the administrative officer was examined as RW1, and no document was marked.

3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-

(1) Whether the service of the opposite party is deficient?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

(3) If yes, the cost and compensation?

4. We meticulously went through the pleadings, submissions and other materials put on record by the parties. It appears that the opposite parties haven't denied or disputed the complainant case to the extend that the complainant has reserved 25 litres of palpayasam on payment of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) (Ext.A1) and their failure to provide the same as obliged. The complainant had ordered the same for the celebration of the birthday of his infant daughter. As we have earlier observed, concededly the opposite parties failed to comply with the order placed by the complainant. Strangely enough, instead of serving with the offering 'holy drink' to the complainant, it seems that the opposite parties tendered a tenacious explanation for their failure to perform its binding responsibility to the complainant. It is worthwhile to notice that as soon as the complainant sought 25 litres of payasam on 22^nd February 2011, the opposite party, accepting the amount of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) and issued the receipt for the same was virtually promising to provide 'palpayasam' on the next day. It is to be presumed that at the time of tendering the said promise, the promisor was well aware that the act promised to be done needed sufficient quantity of milk for its accomplishment. As such, the promised act was not the one which was impossible. Once the opposite parties promised to provide 'holy drink' to the complainant, it is their duty to see that the said promise is well executed. The scarcity or the non availability of milk from a particular source can never be a valid reason for exonerating the opposite parties from their fastened obligation. It was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to keep on prepared to arrange milk from any other source, in the event of any ‘unexpected shortage' or non availability of the same from the expected supply. This, the opposite parties did not do. In this back drop, the contention of the opposite parties that the failure to provide 'payasam' was due to dire dearth of milk will not absolve them from their liability to keep their promise. It is to be borne in mind that the complainant was caused to linger in the temple premise till 3 pm. All this time, the complainant was hoping against hope that he will obtain the 'sacred drink' the very next moment to celebrate the foremost birth day of his darling daughter. The complainant had invited the dear and near ones for this auspicious event. Needless to say, the complainant sustained inestimable mental agony on account of the deficient service and lack of diligence and fairness on the part of the opposite party. We are of the considered view that the contentions of the opposite parties do not worth acceptance. Obviously, the complainant’s case inspires confidence in the mind of this Forum.  Hence complaint is to be allowed.

For the forgoing facts and circumstance of the case, the opposite parties are directed to pay back an amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees thousand five hundred only) to the complainant as price of the payasam and further pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony, pain, harassment, loss and inconvenience of the complainant due to the deficiency of service and negligence and latches on the side of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial to supply the ‘payasam’ in the specified date to the complainant, even though he had remitted the full amount in advance.  Complaint allowed.

No order for cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of August, 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext. A1            -           The Receipt of palpayasam No.73714 dated, 22.02.2011

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                -           K.S.Sujathakumari (Witness)

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-    

Compared by:-