DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                  ....MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.72/2022

THIS THUSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

1.P.A.Alexander, S/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

   No.181/2, ALFA Apartments(F-4),

   Sachidanandam Street, (Near SK Mahal),

   Pattalam, Chennai 600 012.

 

2.Mrs.Mary Elizabeth, D/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

    No.56, Karpagam Nagar, 

    Ponniamman medu, Chennai 600 110.

 

3.Mr.Issac, S/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

    No.96, Tana Street, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai 07.

 

4.Mr.Joseph, S/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

    No.15,H Block, Pensioner‘ lines, Chennai 600 012.

 

5.Mr.Soloman, S/o.Mr.Peter Antony

    No.4/7, Edward Park Street, 

    Kosapet, Chennai -600 012.

 

6.Mrs.Mary Margaret, D/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

    No.16/1, Desiya Colony,

    Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

 

7.Mrs.Alice Glory, D/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

    No.16/1, Desiya Colony,

    Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

 

8.Mr.William Charles, S/o.Mr.Peter Antony,

    No.C-4, Chandralok Apartments, 

    Choolai, Chennai 600 112.                                                           ……Complainants.

                                                                            //Vs//

1.Rev Fr.Perianayagam,

    Parish Priest,

    St.Reque’s Church,

   Royapuram, Chennai 600 013.

 

2.Re Fr.George Antonisamy,

    Arch-Bishop, Madras-Mylapore Diocese,

    Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.                               …..opposite parties. 

 

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 05.12.2022 in the presence of  complainant who appeared in person and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not considering the complaints made by the complainants with regard to the path way of their parent’s graves.along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to take action to remove the unauthorized portion of the construction at grave No.A166 and to refund a sum of Rs.1700/- towards maintenance charges collected from the complainants for the year 2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Sum and substance of the complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainants that the parents and his blood relatives laid to rest in grave No.A149, A150 &A151. All the graves were attached together by concrete construction without any passage in between them.  Like all other graves in the cemetery, the above graves also had a clear pathway at the foot of the above graves to the extent of more than 4 feet. The purpose of pathway was for offering prayers floral tribute etc., on Remembrance Day and on special occasion.  While being so, the 1st opposite party had permitted to construct a new grave No.A-166 which unauthorizedly extended to the complainant’s parents graves resulting in complete blockage of the pathway.  Thus the complainants filed a complaint dated 05.05.2018 to restore the pathway however, the opposite parties did not take any action even after a lapse of four months and hence preferred an appeal to 2nd opposite party on 06.07.2018 but till today no action had been taken.  Thus it was submitted that the complainants were paying yearly maintenance charges of Rs.1,700/-to the opposite parties.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below; 

 

To direct the opposite parties to take action to remove the unauthorized portion of the construction at grave No.A166;

 To refund a sum of Rs.1700/- towards maintenance charges collected from the complainants for the year 2018;

 To pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 Defence of the opposite parties:-

The opposite parties filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission and preliminary objection was made to the maintainability of the complaint.  It was submitted by the opposite parties that the complainants will not come under the definition of consumer as no service was rendered by them.  The collection of maintenance charges was denied.  Further it was submitted that they have taken every effort to address the complaint and his concerns and the opposite parties has never shirked from observing its duties and obligations alleging that no deficiency in service on their part and thus the opposite parties sought for the complaint to be dismissed. 

On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.6 were marked on their side.  Though the opposite party had filed written version they did not come forward to file the proof affidavit and also did not file any documents and hence the evidence on their side was closed on 22.09.2022. The opposite parties did not appear thereafter to file written arguments and to adduce any oral arguments.

 Points for consideration:-

Whether the complaint is maintainable before this commission?

Whether the alleged deficiency in service has been proved by the complainant by any admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of their allegations; 

Annual cementery maintenance charge card dated 04.06.2010 was marked as Ex.A1;

Letter from Rev.Fr.Gilbert Joe, Parish Priest St.Joseph’s Church, Vepery, Chennai to the parish priest, St.Roque’s Church, Chennai 600013 requesting to remove the unauthorized blockage dated 04.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;

Copy of petition and copy of discharge summary of one Mr. ISSAC  was marked as Ex.A3;

Photo copies were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A6;

As the opposite parties have taken a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the complaint we decided to discuss the same as a preliminary issue.  While being so, we came across a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in CA.No.2014/2020 dated 17.03.2020 in The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer and Ans Vs Kesal Lal wherein the maintainability of the consumer complaint was discussed and it was held that service rendered at no matter how less the consideration was still it is a “service” under Consumer Protection Act.  In the present case the complainants had filed Ex.A1 showing that the maintenance charges were paid every year to the ST. JOSEPH’S CHURCH. Thus the maintenance charges could be considered as consideration and hence the complainants could be the brought under the definition of Consumer Protection Act.  Thus, we hold that the complaint is maintainable holding that the opposite parties were rendering service on acceptance of annual maintenance charges.

Point No.2:-

It is the specific allegation by the complainant that the opposite parties did not take any action for the complainant’s complaint dated 05.05.2018.  Further it is submitted that the pathway to the graves of the complainant’s parents and relatives were blocked. The opposite parties though filed version did not come forward to prove their stand by filing any proof affidavit or documents.  Hence, it is to be held that no action was taken by opposite parties.  In the facts and circumstances the opposite parties not considering the complaints made by the complainants clearly amounts to deficiency in service when they have a duty to maintain the cemetery and graves and the complainant being a member of PARISH CHURCH as per Ex.A2.  Thus we hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not considering the grievances of the complainants.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

Point No.3:-

With regard to the relief to be granted the prayer sought by the complainant could not be granted by this commission. However, we could direct the opposite parties to consider the complaints/representations of the complainants dated 05.05.2018 within six weeks and to take action by way of proper reply to be given to the complainants.  Considering the nature of dispute we are not inclined to award any compensation or cost to the proceedings to the complainant.  Thus the point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them to consider the complaint dated 05.05.2018 and to issue a suitable reply to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  No cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24th day of January 2023.

 

 

 

        -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1 04.06.2010 Annual cementery maintenance charge card. Xerox

Ex.A2 04.06.2018 Letter from Rev.Fr.Gilbert Joe, Parish Priest St.Joseph’s Church, Vepery, Chennai to the parish priest, St.Roque’s Church, Chennai 600013 requesting to remove the unauthorized blockage. Xerox

Ex.A3 01.07.2021 Copy of petition and copy of Discharge Summary of one Mr.Issac. Xerox

Ex.A4 .............. photo. Xerox

Ex.A5 ................. photo. Xerox

Ex.A6 .............. Photo. Xerox

 

 

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd- 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                     PRESIDENT