Date of Filing :27.04.2023
Date of Disposal : 23.08.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 23rd Day of August 2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.791/2023
1. Executive Officer
Wrongly shown as (Peishakar)
Office of the Executive Officer
Srivari Temple, Tirumala
Andrapradesh – 517 504
2. The Chief Officer
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam
Information Centre
Choudaiah Memorial Hall Street
Opp. Stella Marys School
Vyalikaval, Bengaluru-560 003
(By Mr Rajeswara P N Advocate) Appellants
-Versus-
Sri J.Chandrashekar
S/o Late Jevaraiah
Aged about 42 years
M/s Lotus Finance Corporation
No.31/1, 1st Floor, 8th Cross
Maramma Temple Road
Malleswaram
Bengaluru – 560 003 Respondent
(By Mr V.S.Venkatesha Gowda, Advocate)
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP1 and 2 aggrieved by the Order dated 10.03.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.141/2022 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Forum.
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 10.03.2023 passed in CC No. 141/2022 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. One Mr J Chandrashekar, aged about 41 years on the date of complaint has stated, he is the true devotee of Lord Balaji for the past 25 years. He is regularly visiting Lord Balaji temple at Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh with his age old parents and family members. And as a devotee he bought darshan tickets and seva tickets to have darshan of Lord Balaji at Tirupati temple from 2006 to 2008 by paying Rs.8,200/-. Accordingly, seva has been allotted to him and his family members in the year 2020 till August 2022. In other words, Complainant and his family members have waited to have such darshan of lord Balaji for 12 to15 years which in fact is not disputed at all. However, the dispute arose, when OP1 had cancelled the Seva tickets due to Covid-19 guidelines/SOP, had sent letter to that effect.
5. Let us place seva tickets and seva dates would be falling on 20.03.2020, 08.07.2020, 16.04.2021, 10.08.2021 and 04.03.2022 respectively. If we examine, these seva tickets, TTDs reserve the right of cancellation of the seva under any special circumstances. In this regard the Complainant had issued a legal notice on OP1 and 2 to withdraw the cancellation notice and to allocate the same on the available dates with a near future and the said notice was replied by the OPs 1 and 2.
In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, District Commission found Ops rendered deficiency of services and allowed the complaint in part and directed OPs to confirm the seva tickets by withdrawing the cancellation notices and to reallocate the same on the available dates in future within one year from the date of the order with prior intimation to the complainant or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation for rendering deficiency in service and to refund Rs.8,200/- paid towards advance booking charges within 60 days and on their failure to comply with the order even such amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of order till realisation.
6. Let us examine materials found from the enquiry, wherein could see TTD in its resolution No.412 dated 27.02.2021 resolved to request the ticket holder to avail VIP break darshan or to accept refund to their already booked ‘Arjita Seva’ in TTD online portal as the TTD Board after examining the feasibility to accommodate the advance booked Arjitha Seva ticket holder and found difficult to permit them in view of Covid-19 guidelines. This was informed to complainant on 07.12.2021 and requested to avail the benefit of either VIP break darshanam or to seek refund of the seva amount. However, on 16.06.2022 complainant did not take such offer, had chosen to file consumer complaint and sought relief as stated above.
7. Learned counsel for Appellants/OPs would submit there was no relationship of service provider and consumer between OPs and such vital aspect of the matter was not at all examined by the DCDRC and submits OPs 1 and 2 are working under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to regulate the seva offer to the Lord. They have not extended any service either to the Complainant or any other devotees. The OPs are performing the role of managing the affairs of the temple and do not undertake any services. In our view learned counsel is right in submitting that the Management of dharshanam of the lord by the devotees is not a service made available to potential user with any quid pro quo and the Management and regulations of dharshanam of lord in a temple by no stretch of imagination could be brought down to the level of a consumer dispute has considerable force, was not at all examined by the District Commission, while passing impugned order.
8. It has come in the enquiry that TTDB had taken a uniform decision in respect of all sevas which were fell during the Covid-19 lockdown restriction period and therefore, there is no discrimination meted out only to the complainant and when other devotees have accepted the refund or VIP break darshanam in lieu of the seva ticket complainant cannot bring his beliefs to the level of consumer dispute as a trusted devottee. It is to be noted from the enquiry, the seva tickets, already booked have been shown for the period of up to 2050 and in such circumstances even implementing the impugned order in the near future or within one year would not be possible considering the strength of such seval ticket holders as they would be overlapping in the order of the devotee, which would cause much hardship not only to those seva ticket holders already fixed but also for the temple authority due to space constraint at the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. As it is shown devotee numbers prefixed as per booking on such dates cannot be refixed to accommodate the complainant and his family or the devotees allotted during the period of Covid-19. It is also shown if all those devotees have to be re-fixed or re-undertaken would be fixed only after 2050 which could be said impractical considering the age of the complainant and his parents.
In the above such circumstances, in our view, the decision taken by TTDB in its resolution No.412 dated 27.02.2021 resolved to request the ticket holder to avail VIP break darshanam or to accept refund to their already booked Arjitha seva could have been availed by the Complainant and his family members and this vital aspect of the dispute was not at all examined by the DCDRC. In other words, the DCDRC committed grave error in directing OPs 1 and 2 to withdraw cancellation notices or to reallocate the same on the available dates in future within one year, on their failure to pay a sum of Rs.45 lakhs. It is wonder how the DCDRC has quantified the compensation at such price for the loss of Darshan of a God in which the complainant and his family have such a belief is not at all appreciated while passing the impugned order.
9. Admittedly complainant being a devotee, is regularly visiting Lord Balaji Temple at Tirupati and such a person in our view cannot compel or dictate OPs 1 and 2 to re-fix the facilities of the darshanam to him and his family members within one year. In our view even he cannot seek any compensation from OPs 1 and 2. Even we assume jurisdiction of Consumer Commission to examine the complaint by virtue of S. 100 of CP Act 2019, at the most from the facts of the case put forth by the parties to the complaint, could have directed the Complainant to avail VIP break darshanam or to accept refund to their already booked Arjitha seva in TTD and if opted, OPs 1 and 2 who are performing the role of managing the affairs of the temple have to inform the complainant and his family members to avail VIP break darshanam or to refund Rs.8,200/- with or without interest. It is for them to decide to refund along with interest and it is also for the Complainant to receive interest or not. In such conclusion, keeping in mind section 151 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 Commission we proceed to allow the Appeal. Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.141/2022 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and as a result dismissed the Complaint with no order as to costs.
10. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
