Mrs.Dhanalakshmi Vijayakumar filed a consumer case on 19 Apr 2017 against Nelliappan, Proprietor, Vijay Srimahal, A/c, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 125/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 19 May 2017.
Complaint presented on: 18.06.2013
Order pronounced on: 18.04.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
TUESDAY THE 18th DAY OF APRIL 2017
C.C.NO.125/2013
1.Mrs.Dhanalakshmi Vijayakumar,
2.S.Vijayakumar,
AP 1048, 17th Street,
G Block, Belly Area,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 40.
….. Complainants
..Vs..
1.Mr.Nalliappan,
Proprietor,
Viyay Sree Mahal A/C,
P1/13rd Avenue,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 40.
2.Mrs.R.Malathy,
Manager,
Vijay Sree Mahal A/C,
P1/13rd Avenue,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 40.
3. Mr.Muthukrishnan @ Muthukumar,
Vijay Sree Mahal A/C,
P1/1 3rd Avenue,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 40.
4. The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
144 Anna Salai,
Chennai – 02.
5. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai – 03.
| .....Opposite Parties
|
|
Date of complaint : 18.06.2013
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.B.Cheran & Mr.M.Nagarathinam
Counsel for 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties : M/s.M.Kempraj M.Mohanraj
&C.P.Logesh
Counsel for 3rd & 4th Opposite Parties : Ex – parte
Counsel for 5th Opposite Party : Ex- Parte (V.Muralikrishnan)
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.10,64,328.80/- with interest from the date of Complaint and with cost of Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The first Opposite Party is a Proprietor of the Kalyana Mandapam known as Vijay Sree Mahal A/C, situated at P.1/1 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai .40. The 2nd Opposite Party is the Manager of the 1st Opposite Party’s Kalyana Mandapam, handling the day today affairs of the Kalyana Mandapam. The 3rd Opposite Party is an employee of the 1st Opposite Party engaged as supervisor of the Kalyana Mandapam. The Complainants approached the 1st Opposite Party to book the Kalyana Mandapam to perform the daughter’s marriage on 15.07.2012 and took the Mandapam for rent for two days on 14.07.2012 and 15.07.2012. The Complainants also paid necessary rent, including decoration of lights. The Complainants also paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as security deposit and the said amount will be adjusted in respect of consumption charges and other charges and the balance would be paid to them. On 14.07.2012 they occupied the Mandapam and the 3rd Opposite Party took inventory of the utensils and other articles and handed over the kitchen and hall to them . The VIPs and the relatives of the bride and bridegroom have attended the marriage.
2. After completion of the marriage around 3 p.m on 15.07.2012 they have vacated the Mandapam. At the time the 3rd Opposite Party noted the electric meter reading for calculating the consumption charges and also furnished the same to the representatives of the Complainants. After adjusting the charges to pay the balance and the day on 15.07.2012 was Sunday, the 3rd Opposite Party informed the Complainant son to come on next day. The Complainants son went on 17.07.2012 again informed him that to come on next day and the bill was not prepared. Finally on 21.07.2012 on various dates charges were claimed and only a balance of Rs.24,808/- was refunded out of the security deposit of Rs.1,60,000/-.
3. The bill raised by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties reveals that the electricity charges boosted double and instead of claiming government rate of Rs. 9.80 they have claimed Rs.15/- per unit for the 2500 units. To make profit they have claimed Rs.15/- per unit on the consumption of electricity.
4. They have also charged for stand by generator at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day and also a sum of Rs.960/- towards the consumption of 20 litrs diesel at the rate of Rs.48 per litre and apart from that they also charged Rs.8,790/- towards power cut charges claiming 5.86 units. This would clearly show that they have raised bill on a mere presumption and not on actual consumption.
5. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have also raised a sum of Rs.13,000/- towards conservancy charges for two days and water charges at the rate of Rs,6,000/- per day amounting to Rs.12,000/-. Further, they have also charged a sum of Rs.12,600/- and Rs.1,200/- for engagement of 40 +2 persons respectively towards labour and Mastery charges to collect garbage and put it outside, which does not form part of the brochure. The above referred collection of charges is a cheating on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to make an illegal gain. Hence the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.08.2012. The 1st Opposite Party gave a reply dated 25.08.2012. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 collected additional charges for electricity and also collected various charges stated above is a clear case of illegal gain to them and thereby committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the amounts collected additionally and also compensation for deficiency in service with cost of the Complaint.
6.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st & 2nd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:
The 1st Opposite Party is the owner of the Kalyana Mandapam and the 2nd Opposite Party is the Manager of the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party adopts the written version of the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainants booked the Kalayana Mandapam for the celebration of their daughter’s marriage on 14.07.2012 and 15.07.2012 and also paid the rent for the Mandapam. The Complainants also made payment of Rs.1,60,000/- towards security deposit. The said amount is for consumption of electricity charges and other incidental charges. The Complainants occupied the Mandapam on 14.07.2012 and also performed their daughter’s marriage. The Complainant consumed 2500 units of electricity consumption, charges was made at the rate of Rs.10/- per unit and Rs.5/- per unit for service for maintenance charges for the electricity and thereby the total charge at the rate of Rs.15/- per unit was collected. The above said units have been consumed various meters installed in the Mandapam.
7. A standby generator was kept ready and for the said generator consumption of 20 liter of diesel charges and various other charges is charged. A sum of Rs.12,600/- and Rs.1,200/- charged towards engagement of 40 persons towards labour charges and 2 persons towards mastery charges are essential for cleaning purpose and the same was collected. A sum of Rs.13,000/- charged towards cleaning and conservancy charges including tax which is actually levied by the corporation of Chennai. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. The Complainant issued legal notice and the same was replied by these Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties provided metro water for cleaning the vessels, cooking and bathing. The amounts raised by this Opposite Parties are justifiable and they have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the Complaint with cost.
8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?
9. POINT NO :1
The admitted facts are that the 1st Opposite Party is the owner of the Vijay Sree Mahal A/C Kalyana Mandapam and the 2nd Opposite Party is the Manager of the said Mandapam and the 3rd Opposite Party is the Supervisor of the said Kalyana Mandapam. The Complainants booked the said Mandapam for two days on 14.07.2012 & 15.07.2012 under Ex.A2 letter to celebrate the daughter’s marriage and Ex.A1 is the contract agreement entered between on behalf of the Complainants with the 1st Opposite Party and the said contract contains terms and conditions in respect of how to use the Mandapam and the Complainants paid rent under Ex.A3 for the said Mandapam and the 1st Opposite Party issued Ex.A4 receipt for the receipt of rent for two days and further the marriage was also performed and the Complainants have vacated the Mandapam on the afternoon on 15.07.2012.
10. Admittedly the Complainants deposited a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards security deposit and the said amount will be utilized for the use of electricity charges and other charges and the balance if any will be refunded by the Opposite Parties to the Complainants.
11. The Complainant contended that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed the following deficiencies that
1)electricity charges have been collected in 3 places under Ex.A5 bill and such collection amount is very exorbitant and further Rs.5/- per unit collected towards service and maintenance charges is not at all sustainable and even Government rate itself would be Rs.9.80/-,
2)in respect of cleaning of vessel and leaves engaged persons 42+2 a sum of Rs.13,800/- was billed and
3)conservancy and cleaning charges @ Rs.6,500/- per day a sum of Rs.13,000/- was collected without any basis
and therefore the Opposite Parties have to be directed to refund the excess amount collected by them.
12. The Opposite Parties contended that under Ex.A5 bill every charges collected was properly accounted in that bill and the balance sum of Rs.24,808/- was refunded to the Complainant and therefore the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service.
13. Admittedly a sum of 2500 units electricity was consumed by the Complainant for two days on 14.07.2012 & 15.07.2012 for the celebration of their daughter’s marriage. For the said 2500 units @ Rs.10/- per unit charged a sum of Rs.25,000/- and towards service and maintenance charges 2500 units @ Rs.5/- per units collected a sum of Rs.12,500/-.
14. According to the Complainant the Government rate per unit is at Rs.9.80/-. This rate was not denied by the Opposite Parties. Hence the rate Rs.9.80/- can be rounded to Rs.10/- per unit. Therefore, for 2500 units a sum of Rs.25,000/- was collected @ Rs.10/- per unit towards electricity charges for consumption is justifiable. However, in Ex.A1 contract there is no clause to collect service & maintenance charges @ Rs.5/- per unit. No maintenance being done by the Opposite Parties in respect of electricity. Furthermore electricity is being supplied by the electricity department and for the use of 2500 units a sum of Rs.25,000/- was collected. Therefore towards service and maintenance charges @ Rs.5/- per unit collected a sum of Rs.12,500/- is without any basis by the Opposite Parties. Further in Ex.A5 under item No.6 a sum of Rs.8,790/- for 586 units @ Rs.15/- per unit was collected towards electricity power cut charges. There is no pleading on behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 that there was power cut during the performance of the marriage on the above said two days. In such circumstances the Opposite Parties have collected a sum of Rs.8,790/- towards the power cut charges was made only to enrich themselves.
15. The Complainant contended that towards generator they have collected a sum of Rs.2,960/- has to be refunded. The Opposite Parties during arguments stated that the generator was running a standby to supply current when the electricity goes off and therefore the amount collected is justifiable.
16. The Complainant next contended that to refund the labour charges collected for 42+2 persons as labourers and mastery were engaged for cleaning of vessels and leaves a sum of Rs.13,600/- was collected. In this respect, it is not the case of the Complainants that they have engaged persons for cleaning the vessels and leaves. Therefore, the amount collected by the Opposite Parties towards cleaning of the vessels and leaves is accepted.
17. The Opposite Parties in Ex.A5 they have collected towards conservancy & cleaning charges @ Rs.6,500/- per day collected a sum of Rs.13,000/-. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties have collected these amounts without any basis and hence such a collection is not justifiable. The Opposite Parties pleaded in their written version that the sum of Rs.13,000/- was collected which is actually levied by the Corporation of Chennai and it is a statutory liability. The Complainants would submit that the Opposite Parties have not made any such payment to the Corporation of Chennai and only to enrich themselves they have collected of this amount. The marriage was performed in the year 2012 and the Opposite Parties filed their proof affidavit in the year 2014. If they really paid the amount to the Corporation of Chennai towards conservancy charges, they would have very well filed the receipt issued by the Corporation of Chennai. Failure to file the receipt as aforesaid, as contended by the Complainants, the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not paid the conservancy charges collected from the Complainant to the Corporation of Chennai is accepted and for the said amount the Complainant is entitled from the Opposite Parties.
18. Therefore, from the forgoing discussions we hold that the Opposite Parties 1& 2 have collected a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards service & maintenance charges, a sum of Rs.8,790/- was collected towards power cut charges and a sum of Rs.13,000/- was collected towards conservancy charges is not justifiable and such a kind of collection of amount is nothing but an unfair trade practice of Opposite Parties and thereby, it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service. The 3rd Opposite Party is only a Supervisor of the 1st Opposite Party and he has no roll in collection of the amount from the Complainants and therefore, it is held that he has not committed any deficiency in service. No relief sought against the Opposite Parties 4 & 5 in the Complaint.
19. POINT NO:2
It is held in point No.1 that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service in respect of collection of a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards service & maintenance charges, a sum of Rs.8,790/- was collected towards power cut charges and a sum of Rs.13,000/- was collected towards conservancy charges a total sum of (Rs.12,500 + 8,790 + 13,000) Rs.34,290/- and for the said amount the Complainant is entitled from the Opposite Parties 1 & 2. Due to deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 3rd Opposite Party and other relief are liable to be dismissed. No relief sought against the 4th & 5th Opposite Parties in the Complaint.
In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.34,290/- (Rupees thirty four thousand two hundred and ninety only) collected towards excess charges to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 3rd Opposite Party and other relief are liable to be dismissed. No relief sought against the 4th & 5th Opposite Parties in the Complaint.
The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18th day of April 2017.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 24.02.2012 Contract between the management and the
Complainants
Ex.A2 dated 24.02.2012 Letter from first Complainant to the 1st Opposite
Party along with the brochure
Ex.A3 dated 24.02.2012 Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
Ex.A4 dated 24.02.2012 Receipt issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
Ex.A5 dated 20.07.2012 Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
Ex.A6 dated 20.07.2012 Receipt issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
Ex.A7 dated 21.07.2012 Bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
Ex.A8 dated 17.08.2012 Letter from the 2nd Complainant to the 1st Opposite
Party
Ex.A9 dated 25.08.2012 Reply from the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
Ex.A10 dated 05.09.2012 Rejoinder issued by the 2nd Complainant to the
Opposite Parties 1 to 3
Ex.A11 dated 17.09.2012 Reply from the 1st Opposite Party to the 2nd
Complainant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st & 2nd OPPOSITE PARTIES :
Ex.B1 dated 14.07.2012 Electricity Consumption Details
& 15.07.2012
Ex.B2 dated 14.07.2012 Electrician Report
& 15.07.2012
Ex.B3 dated 20.07.2012 Working Sheet of the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.B4 dated NIL List of cleaners working under contract on
14.07.2012
Ex.B5 dated NIL List of cleaners working under contract on
14.07.2012
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.