<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008<br /> <br /> 10th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1468/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Ramesh Babu,<br /> S/o P.R.V.Setty,<br /> No.1429, 23rd Main Road,<br /> BSK II Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 70.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.M.G.P.Raja,<br /> M/s. L.M.L Contractors,<br /> No.123, Surveyor Street,<br /> D.V.G Road Cross,<br /> Gandhi Bazaar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Makam Nagaraja Gupta<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.30,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP for the celebration of his daughter marriage to be held on 15th and 16th March 2008 at Sathya Pramoda Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore. A package contract is given to the OP, who undertook to provide all the basic needs in performance of the said marriage including that of catering, decoration, breakfast, garland, flowers etc. An agreement came to be entered into between the complainant and the OP in detail on 01.02.2008. OP agreed to attend to all the needs of the complainant at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/-. But unfortunately though OP received the entire amount, he didn’t keep up the promise and failed to serve certain food items and did not make decorations at the time of reception as promised. The total cost of the said food and other amenities, facilities which are not served is Rs.30,000/-. When complainant demanded the said Rs.30,000/- which is collected in excess OP failed to heed to his demand. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version admitting the fact of he being the marriage contractor undertook to provide the necessary needs of the complainant for the celebration of the said marriage. Complainant agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the said marriage contract and not Rs.2,50,000/- as averred. Actually all the members who attended the said reception and marriage appreciated all the arrangements, food, decoration etc., made by the OP. The other allegations of the complainant are false and frivolous. Out of Rs.2,00,000/- complainant paid only Rs.1,70,000/- he is in due of Rs.30,000/-. Complainant requested OP to arrange the Bharathnatyam and provide extra menu like popcorn and cotton candy etc., which was not covered under the agreement. OP heeded to the said demand and supplied the same. That amount of Rs.50,000/- is also not paid. So complainant himself is in due of Rs.80,000/-. When OP demanded the said amount now the complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Interrogatories were served they were answered. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took the assistance and service of OP the marriage contractor to celebrate the marriage of his daughter on 15th and 16th March 2008 at Sathya Pramoda Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore. According to the complainant OP entered into an agreement on 01.02.2008 with respect to the catering, interior decoration, Chakkali packets, a detailed food menu, snacks and other break fast items to be served are reduced into writing. The complainant and OP have signed the said documents. Copy of the said alleged agreement is produced. <br /> <br /> 7. Now it is contended by the complainant that OP agreed to perform his part of contract as noted above at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/- and complainant paid the said amount to the OP well in advance. Unfortunately none of the documents produced by the complainant speaks to the fact that OP agreed to supply all the above said materials including that of interior decoration, purohith service, vadyam etc., Rs.2,50,000/-.<br /> <br /> 8. It is contended by the OP that complainant agreed to pay only Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the said menu and the items mentioned in the so called agreement dated 01.02.2008. Even out of the said Rs.2,00,000/- complainant has paid only Rs.1,70,000/-. So now the burden lies on the complainant to prove and establish that OP agreed to provide all those facilities including the food etc., at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/- and that he paid the said entire amount to the OP. But in our considered view complainant failed to substantiate the same. No such documents are produced by the complainant either to establish that OP agreed to attend the said demands at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/- or he having paid the said amount to the OP. Under the circumstances the bare and vague allegations of the complainant rather can’t be believed.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course complainant got filed some of the affidavit of the owner of the house and that one of the cook. The interrogatories served on the complainant shows the ignorance of the complainant with regard to who arranged the cook, who paid the catering charges which is rather strange. In addition to that the owner of the said house where complainant is residing had never alleged about the poor quality of the food, scarcity of the food, certain items have not been served either at the reception dinner or at the mahurtham lunch. None others supported the allegations of the complainant. In addition to that the agreement dated 01.02.2008 speaks to the number of persons to whom OP is required served the food and etc. If there is an excess OP is at liberty to collect the extra charges. Unfortunately complainant has not supported the contents of the said agreement saying that hardly 2000 people attended the said marriage and OP is obliged to serve the food to all those persons. <br /> <br /> 10. The fact that OP arranged Bharathnatyam and additional popcorn, candy were served is also not at dispute. When extra items are served naturally OP has got a right to charge extra. Complainant himself says at one breathe that the contract was entered for Rs.2,20,000/- in another breathe he says that it is for Rs.2,50,000/-. So complainant himself is not very much sure about the said contract.<br /> <br /> 11. The possibility of more than expected persons having attended the said marriage can’t be ruled out. As the attendance in the said reception started increasing as per the demand made by the complainant OP served the food to all the members who attended the said marriage. Under such circumstances it can’t be said that in all only 2000 peoples attended the said marriage on that day including that of reception and mahurtham.<br /> <br /> 12. Viewed from any angle we find complainant has failed to substantiate his complaint allegations by leading cogent and consistent evidence. Actually OP has made the counter demand of Rs.80,000/-. So there appears to be some misunderstanding between the complainant and the OP probably that may be the reason for this complaint. We are of the view that complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />