CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 296/09
Saturday the 23rd day of June, 2012
Petitioner : K.N. Somanathan,
Nedumpurathu,
Manganam PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Jayakrishnan.R)
Vs.
Opposite party : M/s. Parvathy Hiring service
Pariyaram PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. CS.Ajayan)
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant entrusted the construction of shamiana for the purpose of marriage of his daughter to the opposite party. According to the complainant, the aforesaid work was entrusted to the opposite party through the complainant’s friend Mr.Paingalathazha Raveendran Nair. The opposite party agreed at the rate of Rs.3.50 per square feet which includes utensils for the purpose of cooking and other articles. Generally the construction of shamiana along with vessels and other utensils will cost only Rs.10,000/-. The complainant alleged that the opposite party received an excessive amount of Rs.25,765/-. The opposite party had also made arrangements for the marriage of the relative of Raveendran Nair in the same shamiana. As the shamiana was constructed for the above mentioned two parties, the custom was to give half of the sum of the 1 ½ times the rate and the actual rate. According to the complainant he was only liable pay Rs.7500/-. The complainant alleged that due to the rude behaviour of the opposite party, he was forced to pay Rs.20,000/-. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the refund of the excess amount of Rs.12,500/-, compensation Rs.5000/- and litigation cost Rs.3000/-.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the admitted rate of Rs.3.50 does not include the utensils. The opposite party further contented that they have not received Rs.25,765/- from the complainant. It was next contented that the opposite party had made arrangements for the marriage of the relative of Raveendran Nair but the same was not arranged in the same shamiana. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both the parties and Exts A1 to A3, Commission repot C1, deposition DW1, DW2, PW4 & commissioner.
Point no.1
Heard the counsels for both sides and perused the documents. The counsel for the opposite party admitted that they had made arrangements for the marriage of the complainant’s daughter and a relative of Raveendran Nair. The petitioner produced an original letter dated 1-2-10 and it is marked as Ext.A3. In Ext.A3, the Manganathu Dewaswam stated that the aforementioned two marriages were solemnized on 11-9-09 and 12-9-09. The opposite party’s counsel submitted that the said marriages were not arranged in the same shamiana. It was further submitted by the opposite party’s counsel that other marriages were also conducted after the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter. But nothing is placed on record that the shamiana built for the marriage of the complainant’s daughter was dismantled and a new one was built for the marriage of the relative of Raveendran Nair. There is also nothing to prove the aforementioned submission of the opposite party that other marriages were also conducted after the marriage of the complainant’s daughter and before the marriage of the relative of Raveendran Nair. So it is much probable that the contention of the complainant that both the marriages took place in the same shamiana and they had to pay only 1 ½ times the actual rate is true.
The complainant produced a copy of the calculation of the area of shamiana along with the bill issued by the Parvathy Hiring service and it is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 makes it clear that the total bill amount is Rs.25,765/-. The complainant filed an IA 909/09 for appointing a commissioner for ascertaining the matters of the shamiana, and it was allowed. As per the order in IA 909/09, Adv.Shivaprasad filed commission report which is marked as Ext.C1 stating the measurements of the shamiana. As per the report the measurements shown in the bill for the four different shamianas are excess.
From the evidence placed on record, we feel that the amount received by the opposite party is high. The commission report makes it clear that all the measurements given in the bill marked as Ext.A1, is excessive. So in our view, the opposite party billed according to their whims and fancies and the said excessive billing might have caused mental agony and tension to the complainant and it is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is ordered as follows
The opposite party will pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and tension suffered by him due to their excessive billing. The opposite party will also pay a litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant which includes the expenses incurred for taking commission.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of bill
Ext.A2-Original letter dtd 15-8-09
Ext.A3-Original letter dtd 01-02-10
Documents of opposite party
Nil
Commission report marked as Ext.C1
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
