Delhi

East Delhi

CC/223/2014

TANVA CREATIVE - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARTHIYANI - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       223 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                05/03/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               19/09/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        20/09/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Tanva Creative Dance Ensemble

Through its Secy.    

A-6, Veer Complex, Above J&K Bank,

Acharya Niketan Mkt.

Mayur Vihar, Delhi 110091………………..………....………..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                       Vs

Karthiyani Auditorium

Through Secy. –Arsha Dharma Parishad

Krishna Marg, Pkt III,

Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi 110091…………………………………..…….Opponent

 

Quorum          Sukhdev Singh           President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                    

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant, a society registered under Society Registration Act XXI, vide registration no. S/24370/ 21^st June 1993 (Ex CW1/1) deals in organizing dance and choreographic events for the upliftment of children in society (in short Society). The society had filed this complaint through its Secretary Mrs Ritu Sharma and had authorised to represent the case through its representative Mr Kishore Sharma (Ex CW1/5 & 5A). The Society had organized an event “An Evening of Dancing Stars” and had booked auditorium/OP for four hours function (Ex CW1/2) after depositing a sum of Rs 20,000/- as Rs 10,000/- booking amount for auditorium and Rs 10,000/-refundable security for the auditorium, through cheque vide no 123864 on dated 10/05/2013 for the said function to be held on 29/05/2013. The amount was deducted from the saving bank account of Ms Ritu Sharma (Ex. CW1/3 & 3A and Ex CW1/4 and 4A).

The complainant stated that OP had assured undisrupted power supply and power backup with adequate parking facilities around their auditorium. On the day of function, there was repeated electricity failure leading to disturbance in organizing the function and audience were getting annoyed by repeated electricity failure, so Secretary of the Society asked OP’s attendant to make necessary arrangement of electricity by generator facility, but no person from OP was able to start the generator thus the said program got disturbed and could not be completed.

There after OP Secretary assured to have a trouble free function after two to three days gap as their generator would be made usable which had gone damaged due to frequent electricity failure, but Society refused to organize such function in short duration.

The complainant sent legal notice to refund the amount for auditorium with compensation of Rs one lakh (Ex CW1/6). When no reply was received, society filed this complaint claiming refund of amount paid to OP a sum of Rs 20,000/-and compensation of Rs 1 lakh for mental harassment and Rs 5 lakh for insult of society in public.  

 

On receiving notice, OP submitted written statement and denied all the allegations of the complainant. It was admitted that said auditorium was booked through OP Secretary of Arsha Dharma Parishad (in short Parishad) who was caretaker of the said auditorium and their Society (Parishad). This Parishad too was registered under the Society Registration Act,1860 vide its registration no. S/2394 in 1963-64 with sole aim to promote religious preaching’s of Guruvayurappan Temple and allows all NGOs for their cultural and religious activities, but never deals in any type of commercial activities. Their contributions were as ‘donations’ under the name of temple.

It was stated that the complainant was not a consumer under section 2(1) (d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the ‘Society’/complainant was dealing in commercial activities. It was also challenged the authorization submitted by ‘Society’ under the name of Mr Kishore Sharma who was working as accountant. It was admitted that Society had booked a function for which a sum of Rs 10,000/- were received for the function and Rs 10,000/- as auditorium security by OP through cheque. But it was denied for any assurance of providing adequate parking facility with a guard as stated in the complaint.

It was also stated that due to frequent electricity drop problem from BSES in the area was existing since long and was duly explained to the Society. It was also admitted by OP that their own generator had developed some mechanical problems due to frequent fluctuation of electricity in the area and the same was later rectified by their mechanic. So delay in resuming the function was neither intentional nor with any other motive. Hence, it was prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

The complainant/Society filed its rejoinder and evidences on affidavit through its authorised representative who was an accountant with Society. He stated on oath that he was authorised by the General Secretary / Mrs Ritu Sharma and had paid the auditorium fee and security amount through cheque and that all facts and evidences had been submitted with complaint were true and correct.

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mr M V Haridas as Secretary of the ‘Parishad’ and affirmed on oath that their facts and evidences were true and correct and all had been submitted on record.

 

Arguments were heard from OP counsel, but Society / complainant’s representative or their counsel did not put appearance for many dates of regular hearing and also on the date of hearing despite of notice. So after perusing the file, order was reserved.

 

We have perused the facts and annexures on record and observed that ‘the Society’ had organized a dancing function at OP auditorium and paid security amount a sum of Rs 10,000/- and auditorium charges Rs 10,000/-. But there was no evidence on record which could be seen that Dance function got disturbed and was cancelled. It was also seen that the Secretary and accountant cum authorised person were having same address and seems to be husband and wife and had pad the amount through her own saving account.

As per the Society Registration Act, every registered society will have a separate current account as per the memorandum, aims and objects of the society, but here it transaction was done under saving bank account of Smt Ritu Sharma and amount was credited in the account of OP. The exhibit on record showed that the amount was received under the head of ‘Donation’ by OP (Ex. CW1/3 & 3A and Ex CW1/4 and 4A).

We have also seen the objection of OP that complainant/society was not a consumer under the Act and was dealing in commercial activities. So, we have also analyzed the definition of Consumer under the Act which states as –

 

“CONSUMER”-  Section 2 (1) (d) ii -

“means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of such services for consideration paid or promised, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

 

‘COMPLAINANT- Section 2(1) (b) i & ii—

• A consumer, or
• Any  voluntary  consumer  association  registered  under the   Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any law for the time being in force; or 

“Person” –Section 2 (1) (m) –

                   “ Person”  includes –

• a firm whether registered or not,
• Hindu Undivided Family;
• A co operative society;
• Every other association of persons whether registered under the Society Registration Act 1860 (21 of 1860) or not.

 By analyzing the definition of complaint , consumer and person under this Act, the said Society fall under this Act as having a legal status. So, complainant is a genuine consumer and the stand of OP/Parishad  is not acceptable.

 

As far as prayer of the complainant/society is concerned where they have given security deposit

to OP for auditorium a sum of Rs 10,000/- so we pass the following order—

1. OP is directed to refund the deposit amount a sum of Rs 10,000/-with 6% interest through account payee mode within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order. 
2. If order is not complied in the time period, complainant shall be entitled to recover the said amount with 9% till realized.
3. There shall be no order to cost or award.  

The order copy be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                                                                              Sukhdev Singh - President