Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

125/2013

Mrs.Dhanalakshmi Vijayakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nelliappan, Proprietor, Vijay Srimahal, A/c, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.B.Cheran

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  18.06.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  18.04.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd 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 18^th    DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.125/2013

 

 

1.Mrs.Dhanalakshmi Vijayakumar,

2.S.Vijayakumar,

AP 1048, 17^th Street,

G Block, Belly Area,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.

                                                                                 

                                                                                ….. Complainants

 

..Vs..

1.Mr.Nalliappan,

Proprietor,

Viyay Sree Mahal A/C,

P1/13^rd Avenue,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.

 

2.Mrs.R.Malathy,

Manager,

Vijay Sree Mahal A/C,

P1/13^rd Avenue,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.

 

 

3. Mr.Muthukrishnan @ Muthukumar,

Vijay Sree Mahal A/C,

P1/1 3^rd 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 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties     : M/s.M.Kempraj M.Mohanraj

                                                                    &C.P.Logesh

 

Counsel for 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties      : Ex – parte

 

Counsel for 5^th 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 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai .40. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the Manager of the 1^st Opposite Party’s Kalyana Mandapam, handling the day today affairs of the Kalyana Mandapam. The 3^rd Opposite Party is an employee of the 1^st Opposite Party engaged as supervisor of the Kalyana Mandapam. The Complainants approached the 1^st 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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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 1^st and 2^nd 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 1^st 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 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is the owner of the Kalyana Mandapam and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Manager of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party adopts the written version of the 1^st 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 1^st Opposite Party is the owner of the Vijay Sree Mahal A/C Kalyana Mandapam and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Manager of the said Mandapam and the 3^rd 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 3^rd Opposite Party is only a Supervisor of the 1^st 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 3^rd Opposite Party and other relief are liable to be dismissed. No relief sought against the 4^th & 5^th 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 3^rd Opposite Party and other relief are liable to be dismissed. No relief sought against the 4^th & 5^th 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 18^th 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 1^st  Opposite

                                                    Party along with the brochure

 

Ex.A3 dated 24.02.2012                   Bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the  2^nd

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 24.02.2012                   Receipt issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 20.07.2012                   Bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2nd

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A6 dated 20.07.2012                   Receipt issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A7 dated 21.07.2012                   Bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2nd

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A8 dated 17.08.2012                   Letter from the 2^nd Complainant to the 1^st Opposite

                                                    Party  

 

Ex.A9 dated 25.08.2012                   Reply from the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A10 dated 05.09.2012                 Rejoinder issued by the 2^nd Complainant to the

                                                    Opposite Parties 1 to 3

 

Ex.A11 dated 17.09.2012                 Reply from the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd

                                                    Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

         

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd  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 1^st 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