BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 457/2003 Filed on 14.11.2003

Dated : 29.11.2008

Complainants:

1. Prem Kumar, S/o Madhavan Pillai, Vilayil Veedu, Vilappilsala, Karodu, Tvpm.

    

2. Priya P. Nair, D/o Madhavan Pillai, Vilayil Veedu, Vilappilsala, Karodu, Tvpm.

    

3. Vijayakumar, S/o Raman Pillai, Manikurumbu Sivalayam Veedu, Melamcode, Vellanad, Tvpm.

(By adv. K.P. Renadive)

Opposite parties:

1. The Proprietor, Ganam Auditorium, Pallimukku, Peyadu, Tvpm.

    

2. The Manager, Ganam Auditorium, Pallimukku, Peyadu, Tvpm.

(By adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2008, the Forum on 29.11.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: The 1^st complainant's daughter's marriage was fixed with 3^rd

complainant on 01.09.2003 at Ganam Auditorium, Peyad which is under the ownership of the opposite party. The 1^st complainant had paid Rs. 1000/- as advance to the opposite party on 27.12.2002. Accordingly the 1^st complainant had done all the arrangements of the marriage including the printing of the invitation cards and he had invited all the friends and relatives. On 28.08.2003 when the 1^st

complainant arrived at the auditorium for remitting the balance amount, the opposite party informed him that they have allotted the hall to another party for conducting marriage on the same day. The opposite party admitted the fact that another party has booked the auditorium after the booking of the 1^st

complainant. The complainant was aggrieved by the irresponsible activity and deficiency in service of the opposite party. He filed complaints before police station and R.D Office etc. And settlement talks were conducted. Both the authorities directed the opposite party to allot the auditorium to the 1^st

complainant as he had booked the auditorium at first. But the opposite party was not at all willing to accept that suggestion. The opposite party and other marital party jointly threatened the complainant in many ways. The 1^st complainant was in a serious situation that he had to conduct the marriage of her

daughter on 01.09.2003 at the correct muhurtham. He had to arrange another auditorium in the last moment hardly. Sastha Cinema Theatre and Co-operative Parallel College and he could not inform all the friends and relatives about the change of venue of marriage. So he had published the matter in Mathrubhumi and Desabhimani dailies and informed others through telephone also. In short the complainant had to suffer so much mental agony and strain inspite of huge financial loss. Hence he has approached this Forum against the opposite party for the redressal of his grievances.

The opposite parties filed version and they denied the allegations against them. They admitted that on 01.09.2003 the auditorium was allotted to two separate parties. The complainant being one and one Sasidharan being the other. They argued that the auditorium consists of two floors, the marriage hall on the first floor and the dining hall on the ground floor. They suggested that since the time of marriage is different both the parties could conduct the marriage by adjustment or they would arrange another hall for the parties if agreed. Initially the complainant agreed for the second option and in furtherance of which the 2^nd opposite party booked another hall for 01.09.2003. But the complainant had withdrawn

from that agreement. The opposite party argued that the complainant also endorsed before the R.D.O that the issues were full and finally settled. The opposite parties also stated in their version that the complaint is based on figments or imagination based on no legal precedents or legal foundations and only to be rejected.

The complainant and opposite party in this case filed proof affidavit and cross examined them. From the complainant's side produced 12 documents and opposite party produced 3 documents.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs?

3. Costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- The complainants have produced 12 documents to prove their complaint. The documents are marked as Exts. P1 to P12. Ext. P1 is the invitation card. This document substantiate the date of marriage was on 01.09.2003 and the venue of marriage was Ganam Auditorium. Ext. P2(a) is the Mathrubhumi daily dated 01.09.2003 in which the news with photo with regard to the change of venue of marriage to Sastha Theatre. Ext. P2(b) is the Desabhimani daily dated 31.08.2003 in which the same matter is published. Ext. P3 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties demanding compensation. Ext. P4 series are the postal receipts with regard to the notice. Ext. P5 series are the returned acknowledgement cards signed by the opposite parties. Ext. P6 is the bill issued by the Siva Hire Service and Siva Sounds for an amount of Rs. 3005/-. Ext. P7 is the bill issued by Mathrubhumi for Rs. 2960/- for the advertisement. Ext. P8 is the receipt of Rs. 2500/- issued by authority of Co-operative hall as rent dated 01.09.2003. Ext. P8(a) is the receipt by the Sastha Theatre for Rs. 1000/- as electricity and cleaning charge from the complainant. Ext. P9 is the copy of advance booking receipt dated 27.12.2002 for Rs. 1000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. This document evidences that the 1^st complainant has booked Ganam Auditorium for

conducting the marriage on 01.09.2003. It shows that Rs. 4000/- is the total amount for that purpose. Ext. P10 is the copy of terms and conditions of the opposite party. Ext. P11 is the copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the R.D.O requesting the R.D.O to call upon the opposite party to make arrangements to allot the hall to the complainant. Ext. P12 is the copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the S.I of Police, Vilappilsala.

The opposite parties have filed 4 documents to contest the case. Ext. D1 is the copy of booking slip dated 28/3 of Malayinkil Co-operative Bank Auditorium. The booking slip is in the name of V. Rajesh, Ganam Auditorium, date of booking is 29.08.2003, the booking is for 31.08.2003 4 p.m to 01.09.2003 4 p.m. He paid Rs. 1000/- as advance. This document shows that the opposite party voluntarily booked the hall for conducting the marriage on 01.09.2003. Ext. D2 is the copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. D3 is the copy of acknowledgement card with regard to the reply notice.

Complainant's side strongly argued the matter and they have filed detailed arguments notes. The complainants have produced documents to substantiate their case. From the pleadings and evidences adduced by the complainant we can understand the sufferings, mental agony and strains suffered by the complainants. In this case the opposite parties admitted their fault at the time of cross examination. The opposite party admitted that there was negligence on their part to write the date on the ledger.

The documents show that Ganam Auditorium was booked by the complainant first. In such a circumstance the opposite parties had no right to give the hall to conduct another marriage. The documents produced by the complainant evidences the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. And also the complainant through the documentary evidence proved the financial loss he had suffered by the act of the opposite parties. Hence the claim put forward by the complainant is genuine. The opposite parties failed to controvert the contentions of the complainant. The opposite party is legally bound to perform their part according to the terms and conditions as they have received the advance from the complainant. The complainants clearly stated the financial loss sustained by them due to the negligent and deficient act of the opposite parties. The 1^st complainant had suffered a lot for conducting the marriage at the same Muhurtham. The 1^st complainant had got the information

only two days before the date of marriage. We can understand the strains and mental agony he had suffered to arrange all the alternate arrangements for conducting the marriage within two days. At the time of cross examination of DW1, he had stated that “30.08.2003-ലാണ് R.D.O-യുടെ മുന്‍പില്‍ പോയത്. ഹര്‍ജിക്കാരന്‍ വന്നിരുന്നു. കല്യാണത്തിന് ഒരു ദിവസം മുന്‍പാണ്. തലയ്ക്കും തലേന്ന്.” From this deposition we can understand the pathetic condition of a father searching for a hall for conducting the marriage on the very next day. On going through the recorded evidences adduced by the complainant and opposite parties we have concluded that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. As per Ext. P6 document the complainant had paid Rs. 3005/- to the Siva Hire Service. This amount has to be refunded by the opposite party to the complainant. If the opposite party had allotted Ganam Auditorium to the complainant he wouldn't have had to meet such types of extra expenses. As per Ext. P7 bill issued by the Mathrubhumi daily the complainant had paid Rs. 2960/- to them. As per Ext. P8 document the complainant had paid Rs. 2500/- as the rent of Co-operative hall where the feast was conducted in connection with the marriage. Ext. P8(a) document is the evidence that the complainant had paid Rs. 1000/- to Sastha Theatre. Ext. P2(a) is the Desabhimani daily in which the news and photos of the bride and bridegroom was published. But the complainant has not produced the bill for that. And also the complainant has paid Rs. 1000/- as advance to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have to refund that amount also. The complainant has claimed more than Rs. 10000/- on various heads for other expenses he had to pay due to the negligent act of the opposite party. The complainant proved the expenses he had paid with documentary evidence i.e; 3005+2960+2500+1000+1000= Rs. 10465/-. And also he had to spend more than Rs. 3000/- as additional expenses in connection with the change of the auditorium such as informing the matter to the relatives and travel expenses for the arrangements and other expenses in connection with lodging complaints to police station and R.D.O etc. From the above mentioned calculations we have found that the complainant had to spend more than Rs. 15000/- instead of paying Rs. 4000/-.

The complainants in this complaint claim Rs. 300000/- as compensation. The 1^st complainant is the father of 2^nd complainant. 3^rd complainant is the husband of 2^nd complainant. We can understand the

mental agony and strains sustained by them due to the act of the opposite parties. It cannot be commuted in terms of money. We are fully aware that this amount can never compensate the hardships and sufferings he had sustained due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. From the pleadings and evidences adduced by the complainants we are convinced of the sufferings and mental agony and financial loss sustained by the 1^st complainant. There is no doubt that the opposite parties committed

gross negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The act of the opposite parties had not only caused the complainant to suffer a great deal of mental agony but also huge financial loss. One can understand the mental agony, hardships and difficulties of such a complainant when one puts himself in the place of the complainant. Though the loss cannot be commuted in terms of money the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings he had to undergo. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result the 1^st opposite party, the Proprietor, Ganam Auditorium is liable to pay Rs. 11000/-(15000-4000)[Rupees eleven thousand only) to the 1^st complainant as the additional expenses the complainant

had paid due to the negligent and deficient act of the opposite party and shall also pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the 1^st complainant. The opposite parties shall also

pay Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as costs. Time for compliance one month.

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, this the day of 29^th November 2008.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 457/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Premkumar

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Invitation letter for marriage ceremony of complainants 2 and

3 dated 01.09.2003.

P2(a) - Invitation for the marriage ceremony of the 2^nd and 3^rd

complainants and to inform the change of venue published in

Mathrubhumi daily dated 01.09.2003.

P2(b) - Invitation for the marriage ceremony of the 2^nd and 3^rd

complainants and to inform the change of venue published in

Desabhimani daily dated 31.08.2003.

P3 - Copy of advocate notice issued to the opposite parties.

P4 - Postal receipt No. 2304.

P4(a) - Postal receipt No. 2305.

P5 - Acknowledgement card dated 11.09.2003.

P5(a) - Acknowledgement card dated 11.09.2003.

P6 - Receipt No. 820 dated 01.09.2003 for Rs. 3005.

P7 - Advertisement Bill No. D-09-30305664 TV dtd.05.09.2003.

P8 - Receipt dated 01.09.2003.

P9 - Photocopy of advance booking receipt(Ref.No.461) dated

27.12.2002.

P10 - Photocopy of terms and conditions of auditorium issued by

2^nd opposite party.

P11 - Photocopy of complaint submitted to Tvpm. R.D.O dated

29.08.2003.

P12 - Photocopy of complaint submitted to Sub Inspector of Police,

Vilappilsala.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Vincent Raj

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Photocopy of booking slip No. 80, 28/0304 dated 29.08.2003.

D2 - Photocopy of reply notice dated 22.09.2003.

D3 - Photocopy of acknowledgement card dated 23/09.

PRESIDENT

jb