Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/65/2023

Murugavel janakiraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. senguttuvan, s/o Narayanan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Tatva legal chennai santosh ukkur

31 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No.65 of 2023

(Against the Order passed in RBT/ C.C. No.154 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Ariyalur)

 

Dated the 31^ST day of May 2023

Mr. Muragavel Janakiraman,

C.E.O of Matrimony.com Ltd,

Office at : No.94, TVH Beliciaa Towers,

Tower -2, 5^th Floor,

MRC Nagar, Mandavelli,

Chennai – 600 028.                            .. Appellant/Opposite party.

 

- Versus-

N.Senguttuvan,

S/o. Mr. Narayanan,

No.85, 3^rd Avenue,

Metro Nagar,

Alapakkam,

Chennai.                                        .. Respondent/ Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Opposite Party   :  M/s. Tatva Legal Chennai

Counsel for Respondent /Complainant    :  M/s. M. Raju Sharma   

 

                The Respondent as complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint.   Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 16.09.2022 in RBT/ C.C. No.154/2022.

 

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels appearing for both parties, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

ORDER

 

THIRU.R VENKATESA PERUMAL, MEMBER (Open court)

 

1.  The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he had approached the opposite party for the videography and photography of his daughter’s marriage and reception on 29.05.2015 and 28.05.2015 respectively at Venkateswara Padmavathi Thirumana Mahal, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.  The complainant paid Rs.66,250/- to the opposite party on various dates and the opposite party issued receipts for the same.   The total package amount for the same is Rs.85,000/-.  As per the clause 29 of the agreement, the album of photographs, video DVD will be issued to the complainant within 15 days.  Even after several requests and demands, the opposite party has not chosen to give the photos album and DVD.  Hence, the complainant sent email to the opposite party on 16.7.2016 for which on 17.7.2016, the opposite party sent a reply stating that there was a technical fault in opening the wedding file and they are in the verge of retrieval.  Thereafter on 01.02.2017, the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party for which, he has not sent any reply.   Thus alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, this complaint has been filed before the District Commission directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 66,250/-, pay the compensation of  Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for physical agony to the complainant.

 

3.     Though M/s. U. Ashok Kumar, Advocate initially filed Vakalat for the opposite party but subsequently failed to file written version and hence, he was set exparte by the District Commission.  Consequently the District commission passed an exparte order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.66,250/- the amount paid by the complainant with 6% interest from 07.01.2016 and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant.

 

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party for setting aside the order and for chance to contest the case on merits.

 

5.     Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and that they have got valid defence and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint.  Further, the appellant / opposite party submitted that the key staff members in the legal department of the appellant company had left the employment and joined other companies.  Moreover, the appellant company also shifted its office to a new building during March 2020.  After that, Covid-19 lockdown had been in existence.  Subsequent to the resumption of the Court hearings, the case has been transferred from DCDRC, Chennai (South) to DCDRC, Ariyalur.  Thereafter, the appellant / opposite party received the final order copy on 26.11.2022 by way of post.  Thus, he sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

 

6.     When the case had come up before this Commission on 23.05.2023, after hearing the submission of the both parties, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant /opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the opposite party to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 30.05.2023.   Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.

 

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Ariyalur in RBT/C.C. No.154/2022 dt.16.09.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Ariyalur for fresh disposal according to law and on merits after hearing both sides.

 Both parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Ariyalur on 26.06.2023 for further proceedings.  The appellant / opposite party is directed to file Written Version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on the same day itself.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.  

 Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant / opposite party before this Commission.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                   R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/May/2023