STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sampark Centre, MC Space Booking, Sub Divisional Engineer (HQ), New Deluxe Building, Sector 17-B, through Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Rajinder Kumar, House No.5966, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

              SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Rajesh Sood, Advocate for the appellant.

              Respondent in person.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.4,635/-. The OP shall also pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.3,000/-as litigation expenses, within one month from the date of receipt of this order”. 

2.           The facts, in brief, are that the marriage of the sister of the complainant was to be solemnized on 05.05.2011. Therefore, he applied for permission to use the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 06.05.2011 (8.59 a.m.). The permission was granted, to the complainant, for using the Community Centre, Sector 39 Hall+Lawn from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 06.05.2011 (8.59 a.m.). The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,635/- (Rs.4,000/- as rent, Rs.200/- as cleaning charges besides Rs.435/- as services tax), with the Chandigarh Administration Project-e-Sampark, Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide receipt dated 08.02.2011. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Chowkidar of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh,  to take possession of the Hall + lawn from 04.05.2011 to 06.05.2011,  but the same was not given to him, on the ground, that the civil construction work was going on. The complainant approached the authorized Officer of the Municipal Corporation, on 4.5.2011, at 10.00 a.m., but he failed to redress his grievance. Ultimately, the complainant solemnized the marriage of her sister, on the roadside, in Sector 39, Chandigarh, under scathing Sun. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the complainant, asked the Opposite Party, for refund of the amount, deposited by him, it refused to do so. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted the fact that the complainant, booked Community Centre, Sector 39 Hall+ Lawn from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 06.05.2011 (8.59 a.m.), against the payment of Rs.4,635/- with the Chandigarh Administration Project-e-Sampark, Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide receipt dated 08.02.2011. It was, however, stated that the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Roads Sub- Division No.2, M.C. Chandigarh, vide memo No.255 dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure-II), informed that the work of civil construction of first floor of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, had been allotted to M/s J.P. Construction Company. It was further stated, in the letter, that the booking of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, between 20.03.2011 to 31.12.2011, be stopped and cancelled, to avoid any mishap. It was further stated that, accordingly, the Opposite Party, prepared the details of booking, already made from 20.03.2011 onwards and asked 16 permission holders, who had already booked the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, for various functions, vide memo No.485 to 515 dated 17.03.2011, that the first floor of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, was under construction and contact the Opposite Party, and seek the change of venue, so that no inconvenience was caused to them, at a later stage. It was further stated that most of the permission holders, contacted the Opposite Party, and their venues were changed,  whereas, the complainant approached the Opposite Party, after 45 days, from the issuance of the letter, aforesaid, even though, he was provided alternative accommodation/space. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the complainant in person, the Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.             Alongwith the appeal, an application for permission to file the affidavit of Deepak, Peon, of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, by way of additional evidence, was filed, stating therein, that it was he, who delivered the letter dated 17.03.2011, to the complainant. It was stated that additional evidence sought to be adduced, by way of filing of the affidavit of Deepak, Peon, was essential for the just decision of appeal. No reply, to the same was filed.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, as well as the respondent, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.             First, coming to the application, it may be stated here, that the District Forum, rejected the stand of the Opposite Party, on the ground, that the affidavit of the concerned peon, who delivered the letter was not filed. In our considered opinion, the additional evidence sought to be produced, by way of filing the affidavit of Deepak, Peon, is essential, for the just decision of appeal. It is settled principle of law, that every lis, should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities.  When the hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter will prevail over the former. The application for producing the additional  evidence, is allowed. The affidavit of Deepak, Peon,  alongwith   Annexure A-1, copy of the letter dated 17.03.2011, A-2 copy of the list of persons, to whom the letters were delivered, and Annexure A-3, copy of details of booking of the Community Centre, for various dates, are admitted into additional evidence.

10.           Admittedly, the permission was granted to the complainant for using Hall+ Lawn of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh, from 4.5.2011 (9.00 a.m.) to 06.05.2011 (8.59 a.m.). It was also admitted by the Opposite Party, that a sum of Rs.4,635/-, was deposited by the complainant, for the purpose of booking of the said Hall+ Lawn, to perform the marriage of his sister. It is also not disputed, that the complainant was not allowed to use the said Centre on account of the reason, that the civil construction work was going on in the Community Centre. The question arises, as to whether, letter dated 17.03.2011 Annexure A-1, was received by the complainant, informing him, that he should contact the SDO. Annexure A-1, is copy of the letter, which was addressed to the complainant. Alongwith this letter, Annexure A-2, the list of 9 persons, is attached, to whom this letter was allegedly delivered. It may be stated here, that against the name of Rajinder Kumar, H.No.5966, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh, at serial number 3 in the list A-2 (at page 20 of the file of this Commission), one S.R.Singla had signed on 18.03.2011. Not only this, in the other list at page 21 of the appeal file, against the name of Jatinder Pal Singh, H.No.3143/B, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh,   at serial number 2 , same S.R.Singla, signed on 18.03.2011. Deepak Peon, in his affidavit, which has been admitted into additional evidence, stated that that he was deputed to deliver the letter, at the residence of Rajinder Kumar, H.No.5966, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh. He further stated that he delivered the letter dated 17.03.2011 on 18.03.2011, at the house of Rajinder Kumar, H.No.5966, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh. He did not state, in his affidavit, as to which person, received this letter, from him.  He also did not specify, in the affidavit, as to whether, the person, who allegedly received the said letter, was related to the complainant, or was an occupant of the same house. The affidavit of Deepak, Peon, is, therefore, vague and indefinite. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that S.R.Singla, who allegedly received the letter, was neither the occupant of the house, in question, nor was he related to him, in any manner. If the letter, in question, was not delivered to the complainant, or his family members, residing with him, in the same house, no presumption could be drawn, that the same was actually delivered to him, or his authorized agent. Since the letter, in question, which was not proved, to have been delivered to the complainant on 18.03.2011, the Opposite Party, could not refuse to refund the amount, to the complainant, on the ground, that he approached the Municipal Corporation/appellant/opposite party,  after 45 days, of the alleged delivery of the letter dated 17.03.2011. By not refunding the amount of Rs.4,635/-, without providing any service, to the complainant, in respect of the Hall+ Lawn, aforesaid, which was booked by him, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was right, in holding so.

11.           Now, coming to the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that the alternative site was provided to the complainant, it may be stated here, that the same was arranged by him (complainant), on payment of separate charges. Even, the provision of alternative site, on payment of charges, by the complainant, was a separate transaction, and it had no connection, whatsoever, with the booking of the Hall+ Lawn of the Community Centre, Sector 39, Chandigarh. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant, from this factum. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant, as well as the respondent.

13.         The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

March 1, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg.