O R D E R
By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- The Opposite Party is doing the business of arranging event management of programmes. The Complainant being the Manager of the reputed schools, when he was approached by the Opposite Party, had given the Jubilee Celebration of the De-Paul School for which the Opposite Party would arrange the full venue setting, charting, planning and arrange programmes of the students, would give rehearsals, costumes, themes, background score etc, of the programmes which was proposed to be held in the first week of December 2018. After due deliberations the total amount for the programme was fixed to Rs.6,00,000/-. The said amount was to be collected from the students along with the managements contribution . It was agreed in the second week of July 2018. After the deal was fixed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the Opposite Party as advance as required by the Opposite Party by bank transfer on 20.07.2018. After receiving the amount there was no communication from the Opposite Party, but in the meanwhile the flood swept the state of Kerala and the Management decided to abate the intended Jubilee Celebration with the consent of the PTA and the matter was duly intimated to the Opposite party and he had stated to refund the amount on or before 30.09.2018. But he did not comply his promise and he did not respond or cared even to attend the phone.
3. Since the amount was collected from the students to give advance, on the context of cancellation of the programme, the amount had to be refunded to the students. Hence the Complainant contacted the Opposite party on several occasion, but all were in vein. When all the attempts of the Complainant failed, he sent a registered notice to the Opposite Party’s address, but it was retured with an endorsement “not known”. Thus, a second notice was sent in another address of the Opposite Party which was traced out by the Complainant. But, though the Opposite Party had received the notice on 27.11.2018 he neither replied nor returned the amount. So the Opposite Party has played unfair trade practice and deceived the Complainant by obtaining the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance but without returning the amount. This attitude of the Opposite Party has caused to affect the reputation of the Complainant’s institution since they could not refund the contribution amount to the students from whom it was collected. Hence the complaint is filed praying the following relief, by directing the Opposite Party to:-
1. Return an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant which the
Opposite Party received as advance, with 18% interest from 20.07.2018.
2. Give compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for the deficiency
of service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party and
3. To pay the cost of the Complaint.
4. The Forum registered the complaint and notice was served on the Opposite Party on 09.08.2019 and 21.11.2019 for appearance.
5. In the initial stages of the proceedings that is on 07.01.2020 Opposite Party appeared and on 05.02.2020 Opposite Party was represented before the Forum. But, subsequently, the Opposite Party neither appeared and represented nor even version was filed. Hence the Opposite Party was declared exparte on 17.03.2020.
6. The Complainant appeared before the Forum, affidavit filed and Exts. A1 and A2 series were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1 on 17.06.2020 and the complaint was finally heard.
7. The Opposite Party had the opportunity to contest his case. But he was reluctant to appear, represent, file version and give evidence as and when required, before the Forum.
8. Hence, upon perusal of the complaint, documents marked, evidence, and examination of Complainant as PW1, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there has been any unfair trade practice or deficiency of
service on the part of the Opposite party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed
for?
3. Relief and cost.
9. Point No.1:- As per the contentions of the Complainant he had entrusted the conducting of the Jubilee Celebration programme of the De-Paul School to the Opposite Party for which the total consideration agreed upon was Rs.6,00,000/- out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the Opposite party by bank transfer on 20.07.2018. As the flood was affected in the State of Kerala, the Complainant was forced to abate the jubilee celebration programme and the matter was duly intimated to the Opposite party. The Opposite party had agreed to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 30.09.2018 to the complainant but the Opposite party did not refund the amount. Hence the Complainant sent a lawyer notice as per Ext.A1© to the Opposite Party on 13.11.2018 for which a reply notice dated 24.12.2018 as per Ext.A2(a) was forwarded by the Opposite Party through his lawyer to the Complainant. The reply notice admits that the Opposite party had received Rs.2,00,000/- as advance payment, by bank transfer. The notice also admits that the total amount of consideration agreed upon between the parties was Rs.6,00,000/-. All other allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite party and the Opposite Party narrates the way by which he had expended Rs.2,15,000/- as initial expenses and advances for the conducting of the programme. But no documents have been submitted by the Opposite Party to substantiate his contentions. He neither appeared nor filed version before the Forum. Therefore, the Forum has no other way to disbelieve the allegations of the Complainant. It is evident that the Opposite Party had received Rs.2,00,000/- as advance by bank transfer from the Complainant for the arrangement of the Jubilee Celebration Programme which was not needed to be conducted by the Opposite Party due to flood as the matter was duly intimated to the Opposite Party. As the contentions of the Opposite Party are not proved with corroborating documents and substantiating evidences and as the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was not refunded to the Complainant, the Forum is of the view that there has been unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
10. Point No.2:- As there has been unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and as the complainant could not return to the students the contributions collected from them it has adversely affected the reputation of the school authorities. In the above circumstances the complainant has the right to get compensation.
11. Point No.3:- As points No.1 and 2 are proved against the Opposite party the Forum passes the orders regarding relief and cost as follows.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is ordered to:-
- Refund Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) being the advance received by the Opposite Party from the Complainant together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 20.07.2018 to the Complainant.
- Pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as compensation for loss of reputation, inconvenience due to deficiency of service, to the Complainant.
- Pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the complaint to the Complainant.
The above order shall be obeyed by the Opposite party within one month
from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant shall have the right to
recover the amounts through due process of law.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of June 2020.
Date of filing:26.12.2018.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant.:-
PW1. Fr. Santhosh. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1(a). Postal Receipt.
A1(b). Acknowledgement.
A1©. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:13.11.2018.
A2(a). Reply Notice. dt:24.12.2018.
A2(b). Postal Cover.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
