IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 162/2011 (Filed on 11.07.2011)
Between:
K.C. Abraham,
Kottackal House,
Yamuna Nagar,
Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla Village,
Thiruvalla Taluk – 689 101. … Complainant
(By Adv. George. M. George)
And:
1. Jacob Bakers and outdoor catering,
Velloor.P.O., Pampady,
Kottayam – 686 501,
Rep. by its Proprietor.
2. Thomas Jacob,
Puthenparampil Mahaneeyam,
Kumbanad.P.O. – 689 547,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
3. Paul. B, Marketing Manager,
Jacob Bakers and outdoor catering,
Velloor.P.O., Pampady,
Kottayam – 686 501. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Mini Lovegith)
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows: 1st opposite party is a firm doing the business of Bakers and outdoor Catering having retail outlets at several places including Thiruvalla. 3rd opposite party, the Marketing Manager of 1st opposite party approached the complainant in connection with the engagement reception of his daughter to be held on 22.12.2010 at the St. Johns Cathedral Auditorium, Thiruvalla. Complainant ordered 325 plates of food for the engagement reception party. Out of the total 325 plates, 250 plates are non-vegetarian and 75 plates are vegetarian food. Both the parties agreed ` 180 as the price per plate of food. Complainant paid ` 5,000 as advance on 23.11.2010, on the assurance of 3rd opposite party that sufficient food will be supplied at correct time.
3. The function started at 11.30 a.m on 22.12.2010, but the opposite parties men arrived only at 12.45 p.m with the food. Moreover the food materials also were of small quantity contrary to the agreement and the manner of serving was also of low standard. The invitees couldn’t eat the food properly and sufficiently due to the insufficiency of food and misbehaviour of the suppliers. Most of the guests who participated the function were annoyed and they told the petitioner that this was an insult to them. Petitioner was very much ashamed before the relatives and invitees gathered there.
4. On that day itself complainant filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla regarding the matter but the opposite parties did not appeared before the S.I of Police in spite of repeated requests.
5. After that, on 23.03.2011 a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the opposite parties calling him to compensate the loss sustained to him. But they sent reply notice with false contentions.
6. The act of the opposite parties caused severe mental agony and insult to the complainant and his family which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation of ` 70,000 and also the cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties.
7. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following contentions. Opposite parties admitted that they entered into an agreement with the complainant for the supply of 325 plates of food for the engagement reception to be held on 22.12.2010. Out of the total 325 plates of food 250 plates are non-vegetarian and 75 plates are vegetarian food at a rate of ` 180 per plate and they received ` 5,000 as advance.
8. The 3rd opposite party and his men arrived at the venue in time and the entire ordered 325 plates of food were served with high dignity and with great honour. The opposite parties supplied the entire 250 plates of non-vegetarian food to the invitees of petitioner as ordered by them. Most of the guest who attended the function demanded non-vegetarian food. So there arose an excess demand for non-vegetarian food as against the ordered 250 plates. The situation of insufficiency of non-vegetarian food was due to the error in placing correct order for sufficient non-vegetarian food, which was happened due to the fault of the complainant.
9. After the function, opposite parties demanded the balance amount of ` 53,500 from the petitioner but he evaded the payment by alleging that quantity of food was insufficient. Opposite parties made a complaint before the S.I of Police, Thiruvalla on 14.02.2011 for getting the balance amount but even then he did not paid the amount. Complainant also filed a false complaint before the S.I. of Police, Thiruvalla but they advised to approach proper Forum. On receiving the legal notice, opposite parties sent reply notice and demanded to pay the balance amount of food supplied. Moreover, 2nd opposite party filed a suit before Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla against the complainant and his daughter for the realization of ` 53,500 and cost which is pending. This complaint is filed as a shield from paying the balance amount of the supplied food as per the agreement. Hence the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency of service.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
11. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and Exts.A1 to A7 and the proof affidavit of the 3rd opposite party. After closure of evidence, opposite parties filed an argument note and both sides were heard.
12. The Point:- The complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation for mental agony and insult caused to him due to the act of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, he ordered 325 plates of food from the opposite parties for the engagement reception of his daughter held on 22.12.2010 and paid ` 5,000 as advance. But the opposite parties failed to serve the food in time and food materials brought was also insufficient and the manner of serving was also in low standard. The petitioner very much ashamed before the relatives and invitees which caused severe mental agony to him and his family. Therefore he filed this complaint for realizing ` 70,000 from the opposite parties as compensation along with cost.
13. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 7 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant is marked as Exts.A1 to A7. One witness also examined as PW2. Ext.A1 is the menue issued by Jacobs Bakers dated 23.11.2010. Ext.A2 is the copy of legal notice dated 23.03.2011 issued to 1st opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint dated 22.12.2010 given to Thiruvalla police by the complainant. Ext.A4 is the postal receipt of Ext.A2. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card dated 28.03.2011 of Ext.A2. Ext.A6 are the photographs of the engagement reception party. Ext.A7 is the C.D of the engagement party.
14. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that petitioner ordered for a total number of 325 plates of lunch for the engagement reception. Out of the total 325 plates, 250 plates are non-vegetarian and 75 plates are vegetarian. Opposite parties supplied the entire 325 plates. But most of the guests who attended the function demanded non-vegetarian food. The demand of non-veg food is highly excessive than the ordered number. This situation arose due to the calculation error of the petitioner. Complainant filed this complaint in order to escape from paying the balance amount of supplied food ` 53,500. Hence the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
15. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 3rd opposite party filed a proof affidavit. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of the opposite parties.
16. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the booking of the food materials for the party. The dispute is with regard to the insufficiency of the food materials supplied by the opposite party and the bad manner of distribution of the same to the invitees. According to the complainant, though he had ordered altogether 325 plates of food of normal quantity, opposite parties supplied not sufficient food so as to satisfy the need of the invitees. The workers of the opposite parties also behaved in a bad manner towards the invitees during the serving of the food. But according to the opposite parties, the complainant ordered only 250 plates of non-vegetarian food whereas the number of invitees demanded non-vegetarian food was more than 250 and this was caused due to the mis-calculation of the complainant. This created some problems at the time of serving the food to the invitees. So they argued that they are not responsible for the problems. But the opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention. They have not even adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. At the same time, the complainant adduced oral and documentary evidence before this Forum in his favour. The complainant’s allegations are also supported by PW2. We find no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW2. Moreover, the photographs which are marked as Ext. A6 shows that many seats were vacant, which means that the party was not over crowded. Ext. A2, the copy of the police complaint clearly shows that the complainant had made a complaint before the police on the very same day itself. This indicates that the complainant was very much aggrieved in the attitude of the opposite parties on the very same day itself. This itself cuts the root of the opposite parties’ defence, that this complaint is a counter blast to their demand for the balance amount due from the complainant. Opposite parties also failed to adduce any evidence in their favour. Thus, the complainant has proved his case against the opposite parties. Therefore, we find that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service to the complainant and hence this complaint is allowable.
17. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of ` 35,000 (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as compensation along with cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 27thday of June, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : K.C. Abraham
PW2 : K.C. Philipose.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Menu issued by Jacobs Bakers dated 23.11.2010.
A2 : Copy of legal notice dated 23.03.2011 issued to 1st
opposite party.
A3 : Copy of petition dated 22.12.2010 submitted before
the Thiruvalla police by the complainant.
A4 : Postal receipt of Ext.A2.
A5 : Acknowledgment card dated 28.03.2011 of Ext.A2.
A6 : Photographs of the engagement reception party.
A7 : C.D of the engagement party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior superintendent
Copy to:- (1) K.C. Abraham, Kottackal House, Yamuna Nagar,
Kulakkadu, Thiruvalla Village,
Thiruvalla Taluk – 689 101.
(2) Proprietor, Jacob Bakers and Outdoor Catering,
Velloor.P.O., Pampady, Kottayam – 686 501.
(3) Thomas Jacob, Puthenparampil Mahaneeyam,
Kumbanad.P.O. – 689 547, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(4) Paul. B, Marketing Manager, Jacob Bakers and Outdoor
Catering,Velloor.P.O., Pampady, Kottayam – 686 501.
(5) The Stock File.
