Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1279

BASANTILAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAGAR PANCHAYAT - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 03.01.2009 passed in C.C. No. 04/2009 by the District Forum, Ashoknagar)  

 

BASANTILAL.                                                                           …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

MUKHYA NAGAR PANCHAYAT ADHIKARI,

NAGAR PANCHAYAT, MUNGAWALI, ASHOKNAGAR.          …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

25.04.2016

 

          Shri Kartikeya Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.           

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

                      This is an appeal filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the order dated 03.01.2009 passed in C.C.No. 04/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ashoknagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum’) whereby the complaint has been dismissed.

2.                     The case of the appellant in short is that marriage of his daughter was scheduled on 29.11.2008 for which he booked Nagar Bhawan on 24.09.2008.  He spent Rs.1120/- towards cleaning and decorating the said bhawan. It is alleged by the appellant that on 29.11.2008 when he went to the said bhawan the employees asked him to remove the articles from the bhawan and make arrangement anywhere else as the bhawan is to be used by some parshad Imratlal for marriage of his daughter. He therefore filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service in cancelling the booking and claimed a sum of Rs.34,990/- with interest and cost.   

3.                     The respondent resisted the complaint on the ground that appellant booked the nagar bhawan for 29.11.2008 and he used the said bhawan for staying the guests.  The amount so paid includes the cleaning of the bhawan, therefore it is not true that the appellant spent Rs.1120/- for cleaning the said bhawan. The complaint be therefore dismissed.

4.                     The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Hence, this appeal.

-2-

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the record we find that appellant booked the nagar bhawan after paying Rs.275/-.  From the marriage card it is clear that marriage place shown in the card as Jain Dharamshala, Near police station, Station Road.  The appellant failed to prove that he not used the booked bhawan on 29.11.2008.  So far as the allegation of the appellant that the employees of the bhawan forced him to vacate the said bhawan for the marriage of daughter of some parshad Imratlal is concerned, the appellant has not filed any marriage card of said Imratlal in support of his contention/allegation.  He has also not proved the fact that when he was forced to vacate the Nagar Bhawan, he arranged Jain Dharamshala on making extra payment.  Since the marriage place shown in the card is Jain Dharamshala, therefore it cannot be believed that he arranged the alternative place later. From the documents available on record, it is not proved that the respondent has committed deficiency in service in cancelling the booking, in fact, the booking was not cancelled.

4.                     In such circumstances, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  The appeal has no substance and is therefore dismissed having no merits at all.