CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:01/12/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/193/2016
P.R.Aravindan
S/o P.K.Raghavappanickar, (Late) : Complainant
H5-Sahara, Gandhi Nagar,
Puthuppariyaram Post,
Palakkad
(Rep.in person)
Vs
Manager, Keerthi Cateres,
7/737-2,
Thorappalayam,
Palakkad, : Opposite party
(By Adv.R.Aswathy)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
On the day of death of the wife of the complainant that is on 07/11/2016, the complainant bought from the opposite party 20 meals. The opposite party gave him meals at the rate of Rs.50/-per meal on the 11th day of the demise of the complainant’s wife on 17/11/2016, the complainant arranged 20 meals from the opposite party, which he received. But the opposite party charged from the complainant Rs.120/-per meal instead of Rs.50/-per meal. The opposite party on the requirement of the complainant gave additionally two side dishes, one of which was ginger curry, one “pappad” and one small cup of pudding . The complainant pleads that for 50 Rs. per meal, for additional dishes given instead of taking Rs.20 /- or Rs.30/- extra, that the opposite party levied on the complainant Rs.70/- extra can be considered as a complete exploitation. The complainant pleads for the need for interference of the Hon’ble Forum in order that the opposite party not to exploit the households of deceased persons.
The complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to order for refund of the excess amount taken from him and to give the opposite party due punishment.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party.
In his version filed by the opposite party, he contends that the above complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the complaint is filed without any bonafides and only to harass this opposite party. It is true that this opposite party had supplied 20 meals to the complainant on 07/11/2016 at Rs.50/-per meal. The said meals were simple as instructed by the complainant. As his wife had passed away on the said day, considering the very simple nature of the meals, each meal was charged at the rate of Rs.50/-per meal and the said amount was paid by the complainant.
It is true that the complainant had again ordered for 20 meals on 17/11/2016 on the 11th day function of the death of his wife. The complainant himself had placed the order and the items for the meals were decided by him and the food was supplied as per his choice. The rate for each meal was fixed at Rs.120/- and the same was communicated to the complainant. This opposite party had agreed to supply the food at Puduppariyaram which is about 6 kms from Palakkad town. The price was fixed after consulting the complainant who had readily agreed to pay the amount and the complainant paid the amount on the said day itself without any objection.
According to the opposite party, there is absolutely no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the amount fixed was most reasonable and no excessive amount was taken from the complainant. The price was fixed on mutual consent. The complainant has no right to file a complaint after having agreed to the price, availing of the service and especially after having paid the price. The complaint filed is not only frivolous but also an abuse of the process of law and the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
Considering the above circumstances the complaint is to be dismissed with costs of this opposite party and the same is prayed for.
The documents filed from the side of the complainant consisted of chief affidavit and Ext.A1. Opposite party also filed affidavit. Complainant was heard, although opposite party prays time for hearing, it was not allowed.
In this case, the following issues are considered:
- Whether there is any negligence and/or deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
In this case the complainant pleads that he has not leveled any unlawful complaint unlike stated by the opposite party. As pleaded by the complainant on 07/11/2016 at the rate of Rs.50/-per meal, the opposite party has supplied 20 meals and the price therefore has been paid by the complainant. According to the complainant for the 11th day function of his wife’s demise on 17/11/2016 again 20 meals were arranged with the opposite party and the same was received. But regarding the price instead of Rs.50/- per meal, Rs.120/-per meal was charged by the opposite party and accordingly, the bill vide Ext.A1 was given to him; one small cup of pudding and 2 side dishes were given to the complainant extra by the opposite party. For these additional 3 dishes, charging this fat amount amounts to injustice was opined by the complainant’s family, pleaded by the complainant. This is the reason for his complaint to the Hon’ble Forum. The complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to order for refund to him the excess amount of Rs.1000/-taken from him and to give the opposite party due punishment.
Opposite party contends that the complaint is not maintainable, devoid of bonafides and is filed only to harass the opposite party. Opposite party agrees that he has supplied 20 meals to the complainant at the rate of Rs.50/-per meal on 07/11/2016;but the said meals were very simple in nature as instructed by the complainant. He charged only Rs.50/-per meal from the complainant considering the very simple nature of the meals. The opposite party also confirmed that complainant again ordered for 20 meals on 17/11/2016 on the 11th day death function of his wife. According to the opposite party, the items for the meals were decided by the complainant and food was supplied according to his choice. The rate per meal was fixed at Rs.120/-per meal and the same was communicated to the complainant. This opposite party also agreed to supply the food at Puduppariyaram six kms away from Palakkad town. The price of the meals was fixed after consulting with the complainant who agreed to pay the amount and the complainant paid the amount on 17/11/2016 itself. Further the opposite party contends that there is no unfair trade practice on his part and the amount collected from the complainant for meals supplied to him was most reasonable. The price of meals was fixed with mutual consent. Hence, according to the opposite party, the complaint is frivolous and an abuse of the process of law. Hence, opposite party prays to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost to this opposite party.
From the above, we understand that, opposite party has supplied 20 meals each to the complainant on 07/11/2016 and on 17/11/2016 in connection with his wife’s death function and the rates charged were different, Rs.50/-per meal supplied on 07/11/2016 and Rs.120/-per meal supplied on 17/11/2016. We view that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence regarding the number of dishes and the price of each dish supplied on
07/11/2016 and on 17/11/2016. Further we also view that the complainant paid the amount charged for meals supplied by the opposite party on 17/11/2016 itself without raising any objection regarding the rate per meal charged by the opposite party; also the complainant has not produced any witness to support his claim. Above all, the complainant has also admitted that for the 11th day function on 17/11/2016 additional dishes and pudding were supplied by the opposite party. Therefore we view that the complainant has not been able to produce enough evidence to prove the commission of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party.
In the light of all of the above, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June 2017.
Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
