Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

309/2011

S.M.A. Jaffarullah - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Regal Mahal - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Raj & Raj Associates

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 21.09.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.04.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.309/2011

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL 2019

                                 

S.M.A. Jaffarullah,

S/o. Mr. Aboo Ubaidha,

No.25/13, Eagappan Street,

Pudupet,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                      .. Complainant.                                        

 

                  ..Versus..

 

M/s. Regal Mahal,

Rep. by its Partner

Mr. Ahamed Sahib,

No.15, Kennet Lane,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant     : Mr. Raj & Raj Associates

Counsel for the opposite party  : M/s. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pray to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation of loss and additional expenditure incurred due to change of venue of marriage and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for defective and deficient services rendered by the opposite party also for mental agony, inhuman treatment and financial losses suffered with cost of Rs.2,500/-.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he booked the opposite parties’ Kalyana Mandapam namely Regal Mahal for conducting the marriage function of the complainant’s son on 29.01.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance.   Thereafter on 22.04.2011, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.14,000/- and another sum of Rs.1,000/- towards EB advance on 27.04.2011.  Thereby, he has paid the entire amount towards the entire charges related to Regal Mahal. The complainant submits that the complainant has conducted the marriage of his daughter Ms. Nasreen Meera on 18.07.2004 and his 1^st son, Mohammed Rasooludeen on 06.11.2008 without any objection.  The complainant submits that even after booking the Reegal Mahal and the payment of the entire amount on 27.04.2011, all of a sudden, the opposite party refused to give the Regal Mahal for the due conducting of marriage of his sons Mohammed Abubackar Sithiq and Mohammed Umar Farook and compelled to receive the amount paid towards the said Regal Mahal.  Hence, the complainant gave a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 29.04.2011 for which, no action was taken.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:20.06.2011 for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:12.08.2011 with several allegations. Out of which, the major allegation is that the complainant is not a Muslim and the Regal Mahal is only meant for Muslim community alone and not for general public.   The complainant submits that ‘Ahmadiya’ is otherwise known as ‘Khadiyani’ or ‘Qusdiani’.  The complainant submits that the opposite party never disputed that the complainant and his family member not Professes Islam but refused to conduct the marriage of his second son.  The complainant submits that due to the sudden refusal of the marriage hall.  The complainant was compelled to make alternative arrangement all of a sudden and thereby, the complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.80,000/-.  The complainant submits that refusal to permit the conducting of marriage in the duly booked marriage hall.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant booked the Regal Mahal for conducting marriage of his second son on 29.01.2011 as per the marriage invitation.  The opposite party states that it is also admitted the complainant’s daughter and elder son’s marriage was celebrated in the said Regal Mahal.   The opposite party states that on scrutiny and verification, it was came to the knowledge of the opposite party that the complainant and his family is not coming under the purview of Muslim.  They are coming under the group Khadhiyanis.  The letter dated:27.04.2011 and resolution  are very specific that the Khadhiyanis shall not be permitted to conduct marriage in the Regal Mahal since they are not the Muslims and the booking of Regal Mahal by the complainant was cancelled and the amount paid towards booking of Regal Mahal was returned to the complainant.   The opposite party states that immediately after cancellation of booking, the entire amount has been paid and received by the complainant thereby, there shall no loss.  The opposite party states that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards the loss and additional expenses incurred due to  the cancellation of marriage hall by the opposite party as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of Rs.2,500/- as prayed for?

 

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he booked the opposite parties’ Kalyana Mandapam namely Regal Mahal for conducting the marriage function of the complainant’s sons on 29.01.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance.   Thereafter on 22.04.2011, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.14,000/- and another sum of Rs.1,000/- towards EB advance on 27.04.2011.  Thereby, he has paid the entire amount towards the entire charges related to Regal Mahal.  Ex.A3 is very clear about the payment of Regal Mahal charges.  Further the contention of the complainant is that as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2, the complainant has conducted the marriage of his daughter Ms. Nasreen Meera on 18.07.2004 and his 1^st son, Mohammed Rasuludeen on 06.11.2008 without any objection.  Further the contention of the complainant is that even after booking the Reegal Mahal and the payment of the entire amount on 27.04.2011, all of a sudden, the opposite party refused to give the Regal Mahal for the due conducting of marriage of his sons Mohammed Abubackar Sithiq and Mohammed Umar Farook and compelled to receive the amount paid towards the said Regal Mahal.  Hence, the complainant gave a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 29.04.2011 as per Ex.A5 for which, there is no action.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:20.06.2011 as per Ex.A6 for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:12.08.2011 as per Ex.A7 with several allegations. Out of which, the major allegation is that the complainant is not a Muslim and the Regal Mahal is only meant for Muslim community alone and not for general public.  The opposite party filed  letters issued by the Chief Kazi as per Ex.B1 specifically that the non-Muslims and Khadiyani are not entitled to perform the marriage in the said Regal Mahal since Khadianis are not coming under Muslim.

6.     The learned Counsel cited the decision reported in:

A.I.R. 1923 Madras 171

Between

Narantakath Avullah

-Versus-

Parakkal Mammu & others

Held that

“It is first to be observed that the Ahamadiyans, statedly at least emphasize their adherence to the Islamic formula.  In M.O.V. Ahamad’s principles are stated in his own words beginning –

“We are Muslims by the grace of God: Mustafs, the Holy Prophet of Arabia, is our leader and guide.  The wine of our spiritual knowledge is from the cup of the Book of God which is called Koran: Every Prophet hood has found its culmination in that Messenger of God, whose name is Mohammad.  The revelation and inspiration that we receive have not been granted us independently, but it is through him that we have received this gift”

establishes that the person who Professes Islam and follows Quaran shall be treated as Muslim.

7.     Further the contention of the complainant Ahmadiya is otherwise known as Khadiyani or Qusdiani.   But no document filed except the citation.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party never disputed that the complainant and his family member Professes Islam but refused to conduct the marriage of his second son caused great loss mental agony.  Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the sudden refusal of the marriage hall.  The complainant was constrained to make alternative arrangement all of a sudden and thereby, the complainant was constrained to spend huge amount of Rs.80,000/-.  But the complainant has not filed any record.  Further the contention of the complainant is that refusal to permit the conducting of marriage in the duly booked marriage hall amounts to deficiency in service.  The letter and resolution issued by the Kazi against the settled proposition of Muslim law cannot be considered. 

8.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant booked the Regal Mahal for conducting marriage of his second and third sons on 29.01.2011 as per the marriage invitation Ex.A4 (S).  Further the contention of opposite party it is also admitted the complainant’s daughter and elder son’s marriage was celebrated in the said Regal Mahal as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2. Further the contention of the opposite party is that on scrutiny and verification, it was came to the knowledge of the opposite party that the complainant and his family is not coming under the purview of Muslim.  They are coming under the group Khadhiyanis.  The letter Ex.B2 and resolution Ex.B7 are very specific that the Khadhiyanis shall not be permitted to conduct marriage in the Regal Mahal since they are not the Muslims and the booking of Regal Mahal by the complainant as per Ex.A3 was cancelled and the amount paid towards booking of Regal Mahal was returned to the complainant.   But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that  under what circumstances the opposite party came to know that the complainant and his family belongs to Khadiyanis and they are not Muslims has not been explained.    Equally, in the settled proposition of law that one who Professes Islam and follows Quaran shall be a Muslim is not disputed by the opposite party.  

9.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that immediately after cancellation of booking, the entire amount has been paid and received by the complainant thereby, there shall no loss.  But it is apparently clear that the date of marriage was fixed and wedding cards were printed was fixed as per Ex.A4, sudden cancellation of marriage hall after some preliminary arrangement shall cause great inconvenience is not denied.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.  There is no document to prove that the complainant has expended towards Rs.80,000/- towards alternative arrangement.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties   shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 01^st day of April 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of Wedding invitation for the marriage of the complainant’s daughter A.J. Nasrin Meera
		Copy of Wedding invitation of the complainant’s son A.J. Mohammed Rasuldeen
		Copy of receipt for the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party for booking the hall
		Copy of Wedding invitation of the complainant’s son A.J. Mohammed Abubacker Sithiq and A.J. Mohammed Umar Farook
		Copy of the complaint given by the complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai
		Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
		Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	01.06.2009	Copy of letter from the Chief Kazi
Ex.B2	27.04.2011	Copy of letter from the Masjid – E- Mahamood Managing Committee
Ex.B3	29.04.2011	Copy of acknowledgment given by the complainant
Ex.B4	12.08.2011	Copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party
Ex.B5	13.08.2011	Copy of acknowledgement card
Ex.B6	27.04.2011	Copy of complaint given by the opposite party
Ex.B7		Copy of resolution passed the Shariah Defence Forum

 

 

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT