Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/2/2010

M.Natesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hemarajasekar & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Sathia Chandran

29 Dec 2015

ORDER

                BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

           Present:  Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                          Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                           MEMBER

C.C. No. 2 / 2010

                                             Dated this the 29th day of DECEMBER, 2015

M. Natesan,                                        ]

S/o Munusamy,                                  ]

No.15/33, Thiruvallur Street,               ]

Srinivasa Nagar,                                 ]

Peerkankaranai,                                 ]  ..  Complainant

Chennai – 600 063                    ]

 

                   Vs.

 

1. Hemarajasekar,                     ]

    Proprietor,                                      ]

    ‘Hemraj Palace’,                             ]

    No.322, G.S.T. Road,            ]

    Chrompet,                                      ]

    Chennai – 600 044                          ]

]

2. Niranjan,                               ]

    S/o Hemarajasekar                         ]

    ‘Hemraj Palace’,                             ]

    No.322, G.S.T. Road,            ]

    Chrompet,                                      ]

    Chennai – 600 044                          ]

]

3. Benjamin,                                       ]

    Manager                                         ]

    ‘Hemraj Palace’,                             ]

    No.322, G.S.T. Road,            ]

    Chrompet,                                      ]  ..  Opposite Parties

    Chennai – 600 044                          ]

  

This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 16-10-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Complainant:                    -        Mr. S. Sathiya Chandran

Counsel for Opposite Parties 1&2:       -        Mr. Balakrishnan

Counsel for Opposite Party No.3         -        Exparte.

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is a retired Government Servant. His family fixed the marriage of his son and the marriage was decided to be held and solemnized at Hemraj Palace thirumana mandapam, of which the 1st opposite party is the owner and the 2nd opposite party is the son of the 1st opposite party, taking care of the day to day activities on behalf of the 1st opposite party, and the 3rd opposite party is the Manager.

2.       On 07-09-2008, he booked the marriage hall of the 1st & 2nd opposite party’s for the marriage reception to be held in the evening of 1-2-2009 and the marriage in the morning of 02-02-2009 by paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- which was received by the 3rd opposite party under proper receipt. Subsequently, the complainant paid the following amounts as noted below, which were received by the 3rd opposite party on behalf of the 1st opposite party.

 

08-09-2008 - Rs.10,000/-

12-01-2009  -  Rs.20,000/-

17-01-2009  -  Rs.10,000/-

29-01-2009  -  Rs.20,000/-

30-01-2009  -  Rs.15,000/-

31-01-2009  -  Rs.08,700/-

Total            -  Rs.83,700/-

3.       The complainant had paid the total amount of Rs.93,700/- (Rs.50,000/- being the rent for the marriage hall, and the remaining Rs.43,700/- towards miscellaneous charges such as decoration, stage arrangement for reception, etc.) and he was assured as to the availability of the marriage hall for the conduct of the marriage reception of his son in the evening of 01-02-2009 and the wedding in the morning of  2-2-2009 for Muhurtham. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.3,43,500/- for catering, video coverage, light music Nadaswaram, etc.

4.       On 01-02-2009 at about 1 P.M. when he took his cook to the marriage hall to make preparation for cooking, he was shocked to see that the said marriage hall was taken possession by another marriage troupe and cooking was on. Immediately, the complainant searched for the 3rd opposite party / manager, who was not found in the marriage hall. At last, he contacted the 3rd opposite party who told him that he would do only that way and that he can complain to anybody and the 3rd opposite party also threatened the complainant. The complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party, and he asked the complainant to come to Tambaram where he would return the money, and he went to Tambaram and the 2nd opposite party told the complainant to come to Pallavaram and when he went to Pallavaram, the 2nd opposite party refused to return the money to the complainant, and further he threatened the complainant and others, that if they insist on payment further demanding return of the amount, he would beat them to death. So, he lodged a complaint with the Chrompet police station, and the Inspector was unable to trace out the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and he picked the complainant in his jeep and searched for a marriage hall in the vicinity till 12 P.M. in the mid night on 01-02-2009. However, he could not find any one. There was no marriage hall available, as everyone was already booked, and on the basis of his complaint a case was registered against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties under Sec.420 and 506 (II) IPC.  

5.       As the complainant could not find any marriage hall for the marriage, the bride’s family got agitated and attempted to take away their daughter (Bride). However, at the intervention of the complainant’s family and friends, the bride’s family members were convinced for performing the marriage at the local Karumariamman Temple where the marriage party was constrained to stay overnight without any facilities. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in receiving the rent for the marriage hall for the conduct of the complainant’s son’s marriage and knowing well that the marriage hall was already booked for some other marriage causing irreparable loss and injury, apart from the mental agony for being unable to perform the marriage with all its attendant ceremonies and festivities. Further, an amount of Rs.3,43,500/- went waste due to the non-performance of the marriage in the opposite partys’ marriage hall. The complainant also suffered an estimated loss of Rs.1 Lac which would have been received by the bridegroom in the form of cash gifts and jewels from the relatives, friends and well wishers.    

6.       The complainant issued a lawyer’s notice dated 09-09-2009 calling upon the opposite parties to return the sum of Rs.93,700/- with current rate of interest from the date on which they received the said amount till realization, and to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lac as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the non-performance of the marriage in the opposite parties marriage hall due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and to pay a sum of Rs.25 Lac as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and his family. The said notice was returned by all the 3 of the opposite parties refusing to receive the same.   

7.       Hence, the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to:

 

a)       Pay a sum of Rs.93,700/- with current rate of interest from the date of receipt of the amount till realization;

 

b)       Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lac as compensation being the loss suffered by the complainant due to the non-performance of the marriage in the marriage hall of the opposite parties 1 and 2 due to their deficiency in service on their part;

 

c)       Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25 Lac as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and his family due to the deficiency in service on their part.

 

8.       The 3rd opposite party did not appear before the Commission, and hence he was set exparte.

9.       The 1st opposite party filed version adopted by the 2nd opposite party stating as follows:

The 3rd opposite party is not a manager of their marriage hall and he was only a person to show the marriage hall to the customers and apart from that, he has no power to book the hall. At the entrance of the marriage hall a caution board is placed by the management stating that payment and booking of the marriage hall must be only with the owners and if any amount is paid to any other person, management will not be responsible and while this being so, the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- paid to the 3rd opposite party is illegal and the management will not be liable.

10.     The complainant has filed the receipt (No.146) dated 7-9-2008 signed by the 3rd opposite party. The receipt dated 20-08-2008 Is a true bill. The payment of Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- and Rs.8,700/- are false. For the marriage function to be held on 1-2-2009 and 2-2-2009, bill was issued on 20-8-2009, while this being so, the petitioner’s bill dated 7-9-2008 reflects the receipt No.146 and from this it is clear that the bill of the petitioner is forged one. There is no other receipt produced to prove any further payment.

 

11.     The complainant has lodged a criminal complaint with the Chrompet police and a case has been registered in FIR No.38/2009, which is pending investigation; and that being so, the complainant is estopped from filing this case.         

 

 12.    The complainant has produced only one receipt to show the payment of Rs.10,000/- and he has not furnished any other receipt for further payment. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

13.     The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 13 documents marked as Ex.A1 to A13 on the side of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit for himself and also on behalf of the 1st opposite party, and no documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties.

 

14.     The points for consideration are:

 

i)        Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint;

 

ii)       Whether there is estoppel in view of the police complaint lodged by the complainant, and whether the complaint is maintainable;

 

iii)      Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties;

 

iii)      To what relief the complainant is entitled?

15.     Point No. i: It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have not specifically denied that the complainant did not book the marriage hall at all and the opposite parties simply contended that the person who has collected advance money from the complainant and has issued receipt, is not the manager of their marriage hall, but he is only a staff whose duty is to show the marriage hall to the customers. It is seen from the marriage invitation card Ex.A1 that the marriage reception was to take place in the evening of 1-2-2009 and the marriage was to take place in the morning of 2-2-2009 in the marriage hall of the opposite parties.

 

16.     Further, in the version, the opposite parties have stated that there is a caution board placed by the management near the entrance stating that “Payment and booking of the marriage hall should be made only with the owners, and that if any amount is paid to any other person, the management will not be responsible”. We are unable to understand the logic behind it, as to why the opposite parties should display a board like this, anticipating that their office staff may collect money and book the marriage hall and cheat the innocent customers; and it is abundantly clear that in the guise of warning the customers, the opposite parties have indulged in cheating the customers.

17.     It is further stated in the version that the receipt issued on 20-08-2008 is a true bill, whereas the bill dated 7-9-2008 is a forged one. However, the receipt and the seal in Ex.A1 & A8 are not denied by the opposite parties. From all these, it is quite evident that the 3rd opposite party has collected the money on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for booking their marriage hall, for the marriage reception in the evening of 1-2-2009 and the marriage in the morning of 2-2-2009. It is clearly established that the opposite parties have acted in collusion and has cheated the complainant and played fraud on him using the warning board as a shield to defend their fraud by collecting money from the complainant and also booking the marriage hall to another party and thus the marriage hall was booked for two parties on the same day and we have to take serious note of the fact that the opposite parties have even refused to refund the money collected from the complainant. On considering the entire materials on record, we hold that there is gross deficiency in service of serious nature, on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint and the point is answered accordingly.  

18.     Point Nos. 2 & 3: It is further contended by the opposite parties that on the criminal complaint lodged by the complainant with the Chrompet Police Station a case has been registered against them in FIR No.38 / 2009 and investigation is pending and that when criminal investigation is underway, the complainant is estopped from taking any action under the Consumer Protection Act, and that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

 

19.     In this context, we have to refer to Sec. 3 of The Consumer Protection Act, which says that the relief sought under The Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws in force.

Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act reads as –

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.

 

This is reiterated in various Supreme Court decisions, such as -

CCI Chambers Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development

Credit Bank Ltd. 

 

2003 (4) CTC 299.

 

Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi

2002 (3) CTC 558

 

Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Society v. M. Latha

AIR 2004 Supreme Court 448

 

20.     Therefore, the contention that the complainant is estopped from resorting to the relief under Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum since a criminal complaint is filed by the complainant with Chrompet police station, is quite untenable and we hold that the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum and that the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties, and the points are answered accordingly.

 

21.     Point No.4: We have to note that the marriage hall was booked by the complainant on making payment of advance and also making subsequent payments towards the rent for the marriage hall and he has incurred unnecessary expenses and substantial loss. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount he had paid for the marriage hall, and the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant in this regard for the unnecessary expenses and the heavy loss of money and also to pay compensation for the mental agony, sufferings and hardships, and the point is answered accordingly.   

22.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observation regarding award of compensation: 

 

          Ghaziabad Development vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65

 

“The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.”

23.     As regards the refund of the amount paid to the opposite parties, the complainant has claimed refund of Rs.93,700/- with interest; but we find that only two receipts are filed evidencing payment of money to the opposite parties for the marriage hall.

24.     Ex.A1 is the receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party acknowledging receipt of Rs.10,000/- and Ex.A8 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties acknowledging receipt of Rs.25,000/-. There are endorsements found on the reverse of Ex.A1 acknowledging receipt  of  various amounts  on various dates, but however there are some discrepancies in the dates and the amounts, and so we are not inclined to take into account the endorsed amounts, and therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amounts as per the receipts Ex.A1 and A8 and thus the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.35,000/- only (Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/-).

 

25.     The complainant has produced a number of receipts for payments towards miscellaneous expenditures (Rs.30,000/-), for catering service (Rs.2,50,000/-), for music parties (Rs.21,600/-), travel (Rs.4,950/- + Rs.4,140/- = Rs.9,090/-), in addition to further expenses for photo and video coverage, decorative serial light settings, etc. We cannot pinpoint each and every item of expenditure, and it would be proper and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant.    

26.       As regards the award of compensation for mental agony and sufferings, we have to note that it is a case of extreme mental agony and we have to imagine the sad plight of the miserable parents of the bride and the bridegroom unable to enter the marriage hall for the wedding reception and also for the marriage, having already booked the marriage hall for the reception and marriage. In this context, we have to note that the Inspector of Police, Chrompet P.S., has done a good job, trying his level best to find out some other marriage hall till midnight in his jeep along with the complainant, and we have to appreciate this gesture. Thus, the complainant had to forgo the wedding reception and the other marriage-related functions and had to conduct the marriage in a simple ceremony at Karumariamman Temple.

27.     Having regard to all the relevant factors and considering the gravity of the situation, and the other facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs.10 Lac would be the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the complainant for mental agony and sufferings, and the point is answered accordingly.

28.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) received from the complainant for booking the marriage hall, and directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of the non-performance of the marriage in their marriage hall, and to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony and distress suffered by the complainant, and to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only).

Time for compliance: two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of default to comply with the order, the amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default, till compliance.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI                                J. JAYARAM          

MEMBER                                 PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER     

 

List of Documents filed by the Complainant

 

Ex.A1          01-

02-02-2009    Marriage Invitation card.

 

Ex.A2          07-09-2008   Receipt issued for the advance paid by the

                                        complainant for the conduct of marriage on

                                        01-02-2009

 

Ex.A3          -                    Receipt issued for the miscellaneous

                                        charges

 

Ex.A4          18-10-2008    Receipt issued for catering services

 

Ex.A5          01-02-2009    Receipt issued for Photo & Video coverage.

 

Ex.A6          01-02-2009    Receipts issued for transportation

 

Ex.A7          01-02-2009    Receipt issued for decorative serial light

                                        settings

 

Ex.A8          01-02-2009    FIR in Crime No.38 of 2009 on the file of the

                                        S-13, Chromepet Police Station, Chennai

 

Ex.A9          20-08-2008    Receipt issued for the advance paid by one

                                        R. Narayanan for the conduct of marriage on

                                        01-02-2009

 

Ex.A10        03-02-2009   News item appeared in an English daily “The

                                        Decan Chronicle” and in a Tamil daily

                                        “Dinakaran”

 

Ex.A11        09-09-2009    Lawyer’s Notice caused by the Complainant

                                        to the opposite parties.

 

Ex.A12        -                Returned Registered Letters addressed to

                                        the Opposite Parties.

 

Ex.A13        08-04-2010    Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in

                                        Crl. O.P. No.3131 of 2010      

 

List of Documents filed by the opposite party:   Nil.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI                               J. JAYARAM           

          MEMBER                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER         

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.