IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 22/2020 (filed on 31-01-2020)
Petitioner : Shajan Kurian,
S/o. M.G. Kurian,
Galilee Gardens,
Panayakazhappu P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. Bobby John K.A
And Adv. Siju K. Issac))
Vs.
Opposite Party : Oommen Iype,
Arakkanattil Puthen Veedu,
Piralassery P.O.
Chengannoor, Alappuzha.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant approached the opposite party for taking the opposite party’s auditorium namely Anns International Convention and Exhibition Centre, which is an assembly building constructed in the property in resurvey block No.78 No.13 and 19 of Muttambalam Village in Kottayam District for the purpose of marriage of his son proposed to be conducted on 11-01-2020. The opposite party demanded Rs.2 lakhs as rent and the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as advance vide cheque No.000003 drawn on his account with Kotak Mahindra bank vide receipt dtd.26-11-2019. At the time of booking, the opposite party convinced the complainant that the said building was legally fit for housing the proposed function. Thereafter the complainant started inviting his friends and relatives by printing invitation cards in which the venue was shown as Ann’s International Convention and Exhibition Centre, Eerayilkadavu, Kottayam. Around 2 weeks prior to the date of marriage on getting a reliable information that such auditorium was not suitable for conducting any public gathering as the building was not assessed by the local authority and devoid of occupancy certificate. Immediately, the complainant contacted the opposite party in person and asked him to show the occupancy certificate and other documents, but he evaded the complainant. So realizing that the marriage function could not be hosted in the opposite party’s auditorium, the complainant managed to get another auditorium on payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. Eventhough the complainant demanded the opposite party to return the advance amount received, he has not cared to do so. Occupancy certificate is a pre-requisite for using the building and it is illegal to conduct any function in such a building. Opposite party was well aware that due to the lack of legal requirement, the marriage function could not be conducted in the building. Suppressing that fact the opposite party promised the building on rent and received the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- for making undue enrichment. It is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. The act of the opposite party has caused hardship to the complainant, which is to be compensated.
The opposite party though received the notice sent from this Commission, he refused to accept the notice. He never appeared before the Commission or contest the complaint. So the opposite party was set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit with Ext.A1 to A11.
On perusal of the pleadings and evidence we would frame the following issues.
- Whether the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice or is there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider issue no.1 and 2 together.
Issue No.1 and 2
The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party has given the auditorium in his building, which was not having the required legal documents. According to the complainant, conducting the public function in such a building is illegal. So he had to change the booking, which caused several hardship to him which is to be compensated. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 and A2, a receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant on receipt of Rs.50,000/- as advance. Ext.A3 is the application filed by the complainant before the Public
Information Officer, Kottayam Municipality enquiring whether Ann’s International Convention and Exhibition Centre owned by the opposite party was having the occupancy certificate and permission for conducting public gathering. Ext.A5 is the reply given by the Kottayam Municipality dated 13-01-2020 that that the answer to both the above questions were no. So it is evident that the opposite party’s building was not in a legal status to rent out for any public function.
The opposite party by his refusal of notice itself has expressed his unwillingness to abide by law. We presume that the opposite party was in knowledge of the illegal status of his building in the absence of cogent contrary evidence before us.
The occupancy certificate and other legal documents are issued by the local self-bodies to confirm that there is no unlawful status regarding the building. In the absence of such legal documents the inference is that there would be some unlawful intention behind the business of the building.
The opposite party has rented out the building to the complainant by knowing that the building was not having the necessary sanctions required by law. So the acceptance of Rs.50,000/- as advance for conducting the function in the said legal building itself is unlawful. So this is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant who wished to conduct the marriage ceremony of his son in expectation of celebrating the day peacefully with his friends and relatives. But he came to know that the building was not having legal permissions to operate. He was unable to conduct the function with confidence as some legal actions were anticipated. So he had to change the venue to some other hotel. The complainant has produced Ext.A6 and A7, the cash receipts issued by The Windsor Castle for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. So we are convinced that the opposite party has received payment and promised his service to which he was not legally authorised to. This is considered as unfair trade practice intentionally done by the opposite party.
Hence we allow the complaint vide following order.
O R D E R
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of booking ie. 26-11-2019 till realization.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant, which shall be paid within 30 days from the date of Order, in default of which an interest of 9% is to be paid for the amount.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of November, 2021.
-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 – Copy of receipt dtd.26-11-2019 issued by opposite party to petitioner
A2 – Printout of e-mail dtd.03-01-2020 by opposite party
A3 – Copy of application dtd.04-01-2020 given by petitioner to Kottayam
Municipality.
A4- Copy of acknowledgement of RTI application
A5 – Copy of reply to RTI dtd.13-01-20 by Kottayam Municipality
A6 – Copy of receipt for Rs.1,75,000/- dtd.11-01-2020 issued by the Windsor
Castle.
A7-Copy of receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dtd.11-01-2020 issued by the Windsor
Castle.
A8- Marriage invitation card showing the venue at Ann’s International Convention & Exhibition Centre, Earayil kadavu, Kottayam
A9- Marriage invitation card showing the venue at The Windsor Castle,
Kodimatha, Kottayam
A10-Copy of receipts dtd.11-01-2020 by Rajas Light & Sounds
A11- Statement of account of the complainant for the period of 01-04-19 to
31-03-20 from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
