BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 65/2004 Filed on 03..02..2004
Dated: 30..01..2009
Complainant:
The Secretary, Advisory Committee, Manicode Siva Temple, Vyyettu, Venjaramoodu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)
Opposite party:
Placid Rozario, M/s. Rozario Sounds & Electricals, T.C.33/607, Thyvilakom House, Beach P.O., Vettucaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 007.
(By Adv. Gracy John)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 13..09..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 05..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The complaint has been filed by the Secretary, Advisory Committee, Manicode Siva Temple alleging the following: As per the quotations called for by the complainant from various sound and electrical contractors for the work of illuminations and to install sound systems, for the 'Sivarathri Mahotsav' of the temple, the opposite party who had quoted the lowest price of Rs. 89,000/- was procured by the complainant. The agreed advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 07..12..2003. On 20..01..2004 the Proprietor of the opposite party informed the complainant over phone that due to non-availability of materials for conducting illumination and other activities he is not in a position to provide his services. It was informed by the complainant that the refusal to honour the commitment/promise in the eleventh hour would lead to undue hardship, monetary loss and difficulties. Opposite party abruptly disconnected the call. Thereafter, an urgent meeting of the advisory committee was convened on 21..01..2004 at 6.30 P.M. The said meeting decided to make alternate arrangements and to initiate legal proceedings against the opposite party for causing loss, due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had no option but to select the second bidder at a substantial monetary loss. The committee was therefore constrained to award the contract to the second higher bidder viz., Cine Sounds who had quoted Rs. 1,30,000/-. The services of Cine Sounds had to be procured at an exorbitant cost only because of the refusal of the opposite party to comply with the promise as mentioned in the contract. The said instance had caused substantial agony and hardship to the worshippers of the temple at large. The entire confusion and difficulties to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint claiming Rs. 41,000/- with interest, refund of Rs.10,000/- along with compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. The complainant has filed his affidavit and Exts.P1 to P6 series were marked on the part of the complainant. Complainant has not been cross examined, hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. 4. The following points arise for consideration: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The pleading in the complaint that the opposite party had quoted the lowest price of Rs.89,000/- for the work of illumination and to install sound system has been corroborated by Ext.P1. Ext.P4 further reveals that the opposite party had accepted Rs.10,000/- towards advance amount. The main allegation of the complaint is that the opposite party had informed the complainant with regard to the fact that the opposite party is not in a position to provide his service due to non-availability of materials for conducting illumination and other activities. According to the complainant this has been informed in the eleventh hour and hence they had to convene an urgent meeting of the advisory committee and they had no other option but to select the second bidder at a substantial monetary loss. According to the complainant this re-arrangement of the service to another person which has lead to monetary loss and undue hardships, have been caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
6. The opposite party has neither filed any version nor contested the case. The opposite party has not turned up to deny the allegation levelled against him. The complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint with corroborative evidence which stands uncontroverted. Hence we have no difficulty in accepting the allegations in the complaint and the complainant has succeeded to prove his case.
7. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.41,000/- with 18% interest which they had to pay in addition for making alternate arrangement. But this amount has been paid for the service of another contractor and the complainant has availed their service also. The complainant is found entitled for the refund of Rs.10,000/- paid as advance along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and costs Rs.2,000/-.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings within one month of the receipt of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of January, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.65/2004
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : P. Vamadevan II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of quotation submitted by the opposite party on 04..12..2003 P2 : " submitted by CINI sounds dated 04..12..2003. P3 : " submitted by MOLI sounds dated 04..12..2003 P4 : Copy of agreement entered into complainant and opposite party dated 07.12.2003 P5 : Certificate dated 21.08.2004 issued by Sub Group Officer, Pirappancode, Travancore Devaswom Board P6 : Attested copy of page No.1 of the minutes book of the Advisory Committee. P6(a) : Attested copies of page No.55 and 56 of the minutes book of advisory committee P6(b) : Attested copy of page No.61 of the minutes " P6(c) : Attested copy of page No.62 of the "
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 65/2004 Filed on 03..02..2004
Dated: 30..01..2009
Complainant:
The Secretary, Advisory Committee, Manicode Siva Temple, Vyyettu, Venjaramoodu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)
Opposite party:
Placid Rozario, M/s. Rozario Sounds & Electricals, T.C.33/607, Thyvilakom House, Beach P.O., Vettucaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 007.
(By Adv. Gracy John)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 13..09..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 05..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The complaint has been filed by the Secretary, Advisory Committee, Manicode Siva Temple alleging the following: As per the quotations called for by the complainant from various sound and electrical contractors for the work of illuminations and to install sound systems, for the 'Sivarathri Mahotsav' of the temple, the opposite party who had quoted the lowest price of Rs. 89,000/- was procured by the complainant. The agreed advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 07..12..2003. On 20..01..2004 the Proprietor of the opposite party informed the complainant over phone that due to non-availability of materials for conducting illumination and other activities he is not in a position to provide his services. It was informed by the complainant that the refusal to honour the commitment/promise in the eleventh hour would lead to undue hardship, monetary loss and difficulties. Opposite party abruptly disconnected the call. Thereafter, an urgent meeting of the advisory committee was convened on 21..01..2004 at 6.30 P.M. The said meeting decided to make alternate arrangements and to initiate legal proceedings against the opposite party for causing loss, due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had no option but to select the second bidder at a substantial monetary loss. The committee was therefore constrained to award the contract to the second higher bidder viz., Cine Sounds who had quoted Rs. 1,30,000/-. The services of Cine Sounds had to be procured at an exorbitant cost only because of the refusal of the opposite party to comply with the promise as mentioned in the contract. The said instance had caused substantial agony and hardship to the worshippers of the temple at large. The entire confusion and difficulties to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint claiming Rs. 41,000/- with interest, refund of Rs.10,000/- along with compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. The complainant has filed his affidavit and Exts.P1 to P6 series were marked on the part of the complainant. Complainant has not been cross examined, hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. 4. The following points arise for consideration: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The pleading in the complaint that the opposite party had quoted the lowest price of Rs.89,000/- for the work of illumination and to install sound system has been corroborated by Ext.P1. Ext.P4 further reveals that the opposite party had accepted Rs.10,000/- towards advance amount. The main allegation of the complaint is that the opposite party had informed the complainant with regard to the fact that the opposite party is not in a position to provide his service due to non-availability of materials for conducting illumination and other activities. According to the complainant this has been informed in the eleventh hour and hence they had to convene an urgent meeting of the advisory committee and they had no other option but to select the second bidder at a substantial monetary loss. According to the complainant this re-arrangement of the service to another person which has lead to monetary loss and undue hardships, have been caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
6. The opposite party has neither filed any version nor contested the case. The opposite party has not turned up to deny the allegation levelled against him. The complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint with corroborative evidence which stands uncontroverted. Hence we have no difficulty in accepting the allegations in the complaint and the complainant has succeeded to prove his case.
7. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.41,000/- with 18% interest which they had to pay in addition for making alternate arrangement. But this amount has been paid for the service of another contractor and the complainant has availed their service also. The complainant is found entitled for the refund of Rs.10,000/- paid as advance along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and costs Rs.2,000/-.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings within one month of the receipt of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of January, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.65/2004
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : P. Vamadevan II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of quotation submitted by the opposite party on 04..12..2003 P2 : " submitted by CINI sounds dated 04..12..2003. P3 : " submitted by MOLI sounds dated 04..12..2003 P4 : Copy of agreement entered into complainant and opposite party dated 07.12.2003 P5 : Certificate dated 21.08.2004 issued by Sub Group Officer, Pirappancode, Travancore Devaswom Board P6 : Attested copy of page No.1 of the minutes book of the Advisory Committee. P6(a) : Attested copies of page No.55 and 56 of the minutes book of advisory committee P6(b) : Attested copy of page No.61 of the minutes " P6(c) : Attested copy of page No.62 of the "
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
