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. 491/2002 Filed on 19.11.2002

Dated : 15.10.2010

Complainant:

Roy Varghese, S/o P.V. Varghese, Pazhayaparambil, Anthiyoorkonam, Kollode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. V.J. Jayakumar Abraham)

Opposite parties :

1. S. Jayakumar, General Manager, Hotel Prasanth, a private Ltd. company, P.M.G. Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Surendran, Proprietor, Managing Director, Hotel Prasanth, a private Ltd. company, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K.V. Hemaraj)

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 30.07.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 04.08.2010, the Forum on 15.10.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

On 17.10.2001 complainant hired the opposite party's services by paying an advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- for arranging the lunch, for the fest of the complainant's brother namely Mr. Royan Varghese's marriage function proposed to be conducted on 22.10.2001 at 12.30 p.m. The rate of food agreed was Rs. 90/- per head or cover. The number of persons invited or expected was 175 to 180. An additional arrangement made for vegetarian 5 in number. The menu arranged were ginger lemon, butter chicken, cauliflower, manjurian, vegetable fried rice, Greensalad, Pappad and ice cream or Gulab Jamun. As per the invitation 180 persons were present for the lunch at the opposite party's hall as arranged. But when the invitees sat for having their food the opposite parties did not serve the food items properly and the opposite party reduced the items, quantity and quality against the agreed terms. Only 50 persons ate the food dissatisfactorily. The opposite party supplied only butter chicken and vegetarian fried rice in small quantity. Moreover the bearers of opposite party purposefully delayed service and thereby denied food to the invitees. The opposite party's servants and the 1^st opposite party used bad words to the invitees, even tried to assault some of the invitees. When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for proper service in a proper manner, the 1^st opposite party was reluctant to do so. As a host of the function the inadequacy of food items and misdemanous to the guests lowered the reputation of the complainant's family in the society. The bride's family is ordinarily settled at Secundarabad and the invitees included the bride's relatives also. Since the 1^st opposite party's behaviour was disgraceful and bad, the family's reputation is thereby defamed to them also. The complainant is an accountant in the Deepika Daily and the incident spreaded in the official circle of the complainant. It was also defamatory to the complainant. All the painful things happened only because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Even after the bad service of the opposite parties they forcibly took Rs. 16,370/- purposefully and arbitrarily. The opposite parties' bad behaviour caused mental agony, disgrace, degradation and pain to the complainant and his family. The illegal act happened because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. The opposite parties breached the agreement with the complainant.

Opposite parties in this case filed version. Main contentions in the version are:- As per the function prospectus the menu shows the items to be served and the quantity is not mentioned. The quantity was arranged for 180 persons. The party demanded huge quantity of particular items which are very tasty. But the contract was a lunch including all items. As per the menu the price of ginger lemon is Rs. 10/- per glass, Rs. 75/- per plate for butter chicken, Rs. 45/- per plate for cauliflower manjurian, Rs. 40/- per plate for vegetable fried rice, Rs. 25/- per plate for green salad, Rs. 3/- per price for pappad, Rs. 30/- per bowl for ice cream. Altogether the amount comes to Rs. 228/- per person and as per condition 5 of the banquet rate the hotel can charge 10% surcharge and the total amount comes to Rs. 250/- per person. The items were served at Rs. 90/- per person. The agreement was to serve all items together and not agreed to serve a particular item as per the demand of the individual guest. So the entire allegation is false. The service was sit down service and it will take time to serve all items. That was a natural delay. It was alleged that the 1^st opposite party and his servants used bad words to the invitees and tried to assault some of the invitees of the complainant is basically wrong. The opposite party stated that the complainant is an educated man working at 'Deepika Daily' having connection with police and other public men. If any than happen as alleged he will make a complaint before the police. But so far no complaint is raised and he has no case that the matter was reported to police. So all the allegations are baseless and as per agreement the opposite parties served all the items. The complainant had paid the bill and accepted the receipt without any objection. As alleged there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any amount for deficiency in service, mental agony, negligence etc. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case the complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits. The complainant has produced 9 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. The opposite parties have produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 & D2.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has occurred deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant and opposite parties entered agreement to supply lunch for the fest of the complainant's brother's marriage proposed to be conducted on 22.10.2001. The rate of food agreed per head was Rs. 90/- and the number of persons invited were 180. 180 persons were present for the lunch. But the opposite parties did not serve food properly and the quantity and quality were reduced against the terms of the contract. The items supplied by the opposite party is sufficient for 50 persons only. The complainant also alleges that the service was delayed and the bearers called bad words to the invitees. The inadequacy of food items and misbehaviour to the guests lowered the reputation of the complainant's family. For proving their contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 9 documents. Ext. P1 is the address card of the opposite party's hotel. Ext. P2 is the function prospectus. Ext. P3 is the marriage invitation card. Ext. P4 is the Banquet bill. As per this document the opposite party had paid Rs. 16,370/- on 22.10.2001. Ext. P5 is the payment receipt of Rs. 16,370/- on 22.10.2001. Ext. P6 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext. P7 is the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P8 is also the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P9 is the postal receipt of notice. Through these documents the complainant had proved that the function was conducted in opposite party's hotel on 22.10.2001. From those documents we cannot find that the allegations levelled against the opposite parties are true or false. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not supply sufficient quantity of food to the invitees as per agreement and also the opposite parties misbehaved towards the guests. In this case the opposite party has denied the entire allegations levelled against them by the complainant. Hence the burden is on the complainant to prove his case beyond doubt. The opposite parties have produced 2 documents to contend the case of the complainant. Ext. D1 is the copy of the certificate of incorporation that the opposite party's hotel is a private limited company under the Companies Act. Ext. D2 is the store indent dated 22.10.2001. Through this document the opposite parties have proved that the opposite parties supplied sufficient food materials to supply for 180 persons. From the documents and pleadings adduced by both the parties, we find that the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond doubt. Complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties did not supply sufficient quantity of food to the invitees. To prove the allegations in the complaint, the complainant has not examined any witnesses, who had participated in the marriage party. The complainant failed to produce any evidence in support of his case. Hence for lack of evidence, we cannot allow this complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

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 15^th day of October 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 491/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Address card of the opposite party's hotel.

P2 - Function prospectus.

P3 - Marriage invitation card.

P4 - Banquet bill No. 0114.

P5 - Receipt dated 22.10.2001

P6 - Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant

P7 - Acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.

P8 - Acknowledgement card

P9 - Postal receipt.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of Certificate of Incorporation

D2 - Store Indent dated 22.10.2001

PRESIDENT

jb