BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., Hon’ble President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Thursday the 1st day of March, 2007
C.C. No.18/2006
Pocha Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. P.Venkat Reddy,
Native of parumanchala Village, Jupadu Bunglow Mandal, Kurnool District,
Presently residing in H.No.51-994, at Seetharam Nagar, Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. H. Gopal Reddy, Proprietor,
Anand Cine Complex,Bangarupeta,Kurnool.
2. The Manager,
Anand Cine Complex, Bangarupeta, Kurnool.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. N. Narayana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. K.Viswanatha Reddy, Advocate, Adoni for opposite Parties and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Honourable Lady Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act., seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund ticket amount with 24% interest per annum, Rs.20,000/- for not providing A/C facility, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant and his friend Mr. G.Dhanunjaya Reddy purchased first class ticket for Rs.50/- on
29-05-05 at Anand complex, Kurnool for night show to see the film “Manmada” (Telugu film) and occupied the chairs A.21 and A 22 as mentioned in the ticket, thereafter, the complainant and his friend observed sweating and requested opposite party No.2 to provide A/c and opposite party No.2 replied that he will switch on the A/c and requested to occupied their seats and inspite of requests the opposite party No.2 did not switch on the A/c as assured and the suffocation in the theatre continued even after commencement of film and could not bear the suffocation, the complainant once again approached opposite party No.2 to switch on the A/c and opposite party No.2 behaved in differently and shouted hoarsely stating that you can do whatever you can and even can give complaint to the owner of the theatre in front of other occupance of the theatre. Both the complainant and his friend went into the theatre and saw the movie with much difficulty. It further alleges that the opposite party is at unfair trade practice and gave troubles to the complainant and other the responsible citizens who visit the said complex and the opposite parties are irresponsible and in human towards the complainant and his friend and lastly submits that the opposite parties misrepresented and indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainant being vexed got issued legal notice dt:04-06-05 and opposite party No.1 refused to receive the legal notice. The above conduct of opposite parties constraint the complainant to resort to the forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support his case relied on the following documents viz:1)ticket purchased by the complainant for viewing movie dt:29-05-06 2)office copy of legal notice dt:04-06-05 along with postal receipt and 3)returned registered cover, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and 3rd party G.Dhanunjaya Reddy and the above documents are marked Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite parties and the complainant replied suitablely to the interrogatories caused by the opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and contested that the case by filling written version of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent through out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts and denies the averments made in the complaint. It further denies that there is no post of second opposite party and the first opposite party is the Managing Partner of Anand cine complex, Kunrool and looking after the affairs of the complex. It further submits that the Anand Cine Complex is being maintained efficiently by the managing partner (opposite party No.1) and supervising personally the entire affairs since beginning of the film till the closer of the shows and no inconvenience from the audience is received from all the theatres in the complex. The allegation of the complainant is that the manager did not switch on the A/c inspite of repeated request is only to decrease the reputation of opposite parties and to de grade the opposite party No.1 in public. The A/c. facility is common to all theatres in the complex and A/c. was provide to all the theatres on all days of shows and particularly on 29-05-05 in screen No.6 the A/c was provided to its full and no one complained about the non providing of A/c on that particular day. It further submits that generators are provided to the theatres for A/c purpose in case of failure of electricity or power cut or shut down by the electricity department. The electricity bills pertaining to the theatre shows that the A/c facility was provide to the complex and the question of deficiency in respect of A/c does not arise. It further denies that the opposite party No.1 refused the acceptance of legal notice and the endorsement was managed by the complainant and there is no unfair trade practice and no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1. It lastly submits the Anand Cine Complex, Kurnool is having good reputation among the public for providing all requisite facilities to the audience and rendering services efficiently by providing good entertainment to the public and there was no complaint from any side and the complainant’s claim is exorbitant. Hence, the reliefs claimed by the complainant cannot be granted and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz:1)attendance register of Anand theater for the period of March 2005 to April 2006 of employees of opposite party No.1 2)acquaintance of opposite parties employees for the period from April 2005 to Septemebr 2005 3)attested xerox copy of partner ship deed as to the said theatre and 4)attested xerox copy of electricity bills from March 2005 to August 2005, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and two third party affidavits. The opposite party No.1 and two third parties suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
8. It is a simple case of the complainant that he along with his friend Mr.Dhanunjaya Reddy purchased two first class tickets for Rs.50/- vide Ex.A1 on 29-05-05 for viewing “Manmada” film in opposite parties cine complex after occupying their chairs A21 and A22 in screen No.6 they observed that A/c was not provided and requested opposite parties to provide A/c and inspite of several requests opposite parties did not provided A/c and the complainant and his friend has to bear the inconvenience during the viewing of the film. But on the other side the opposite parties in their written version averments alleges that the A/c facility is common to all the theatres in the complex and on that particular day i.e., 29-05-05 A/c. was provided in full to screen No.6 theatre and there are no complaints from any one on that particularly day that A/c was not provided. The opposite parties further relied on the Ex.B4 attested copy of electricity bill from March 2005 to August 2005, the May month demand was for Rs.2,04,833/- which is highest , consumption when compared to March, April, June, July, and August, hence the opposite party alleges that A/c was provided to the said theatre on that particular day in full. The electricity bills in Ex.B4 are monthly consumption and not day to day consumption bills. Hence, on that basis on a particular day what amount of electricity was consumed cannot be assessed and assumed that A/c was provided in full on that particular day i.e., 29-05-05. The opposite parties in support their pleadings relied on two third party affidavits of M.Osman and B.Somanna, who are working with opposite party No.1 as gate keepers. The said third party affidavits relied by the opposite party No.1 are of their own employees. Hence they cannot withstand to the comment of their interestedness in their employer. Hence on the said affidavits no reliance can be placed nor can be acted upon.
9. The complainant in support of his case relied on the third party affidavit of G.Dhanunjaya Reddy the said third party of the complainant was said to have accompanied the complainant to the said night show for which the Ex.A1 was purchased. The Ex.A1 envisages the purchase of two tickets for Rs.50/- on 29-05-05, the said third party G.Dhanunjaya Reddy says that A/c was not provided on that particular day inspite of several requests. The said affidavit evidence of third party of the complainant duly serving a copy on opposite parties after giving notice, was filed on 19-05-06 and the case was adjourned to 24-05-06 for interrogatories of opposite parties to the said third party, but the said affidavit evidence of the third party was not discredited by the opposite party by causing any interrogatories. Hence, the said third party evidence which is in corroboration to the complainant’s sworn affidavit version corroborated by the unrebutted version of complainant’s third party is making out the deficiency of the opposite parties in not providing A/c during the said show for which the Ex.A1 was purchased.
10. As the deficiency of service of opposite parties in not providing A/c. to the said show is made out the opposite party No.1 is liable to the complainants claim. Therefore the complainant is remaining entitled to the reliefs sought. The reliefs claim by the complainant in this complaint are exorbitant and the complaint is filed not for profit basis. Therefore the compensation is estimated for mental agony is to Rs.1,000/- and as the opposite parties driven the complainant to the forum for redressal. The complainant is also entitled to the costs of the Rs.1,000/-.
11. The opposite party No.1 in his written version averments submits that there is no post of opposite party No.2 (Manager) and as per Ex.B1 & B2, attendance register & acquaintance of opposite parties employees it is clear that there is no post of opposite party No.2 and he further submits that there is no proprietor to Anand Cine Complex, and he is the Managing Partner of Anand Cine Complex & looking after the affairs of said complex and he filed his written version, verified affidavit & sworn affidavit as opposite party No.1. As deficiency of service against opposite party No.1 is proved, he is liable to pay compensation & costs to the complainant as managing partner of Anand Cine Complex (opposite party No.1).
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case with in a month of receipt of this order.
13. In default the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 1st day of March, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
EX.A1Ticket purchased for Rs.50/- by the complainant for viewing moving.
Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice, Dt:04-06-2005 along with postal receipt
No.4192.
Ex.A3 Returned Registered cover along with postal acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Attendance Register of Anand theatre for the period April, 2005 to April,
2006 of the employees of opposite party No.1.
Ex.B2 Acquaintance of opposite parties employees for the period from April,
2005 to September, 2005 (01-04-05 to 01-09-05).
Ex.B3 Attested xerox copy of notarized copy of partnership deed as to said
theatre.
Ex.A4 Attested Xerox copy of Electricity bills from March, 2005 to August,
2005 (No.in 6 bills ) & receipts.).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. N. Narayana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. K.viswanatha Reddy, Advocate, Adoni.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
