BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.30/2009

Between

Complainant : Raghavan,

Thekkedathu House,

Prakash Kara,

Vathikkudi Village,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: M.M.Lissy)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Samjith,

Chalanattu House,

Prakash.

(Secretary,

SNDP Branch No.1747,

Prakash)

2. Pradeep,

Kanikunnel House,

Udayagiri.

(President,

SNDP Branch No.1747,

Prakash)

(Both by Adv:Fenil Jose)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Complainant and the family members are the members of the SNDP Yogam. They believe in Hindu Ezhava since their birth and want to live and die in that community. They are following the rules and regulations of SNDP Yogam. On 29.12.2008 around 11.45 pm, the wife of the complainant died due to cancer. Doctor told that the burial should conduct on 30.12.2008. Complainant's son Surendran and one Mr.Sukumaran, Ambariparambil informed the matter to the Ist opposite party around 6 am on 30.12.2008. But the Ist opposite party refused to do anything for the funeral ceremony and sent them to the 2^nd opposite party. They were not even ready to send "Shanthy" for performing funeral ceremony after repeated requests. The complainant and their men approached the "Shanthy" at Pathinaramkandam Temple, 8 Km away from Prakash for performing the funeral ceremony. Due to non-participation of the leaders of SNDP Branch, Prakash, the complainant has suffered severe mental agony, humiliation and also huge loss of money for arranging another "Shanthy".

2. As per the written version of the opposite parties, the funeral function of the complainant's wife was done by the 'Shanthy" of Karikkinmedu Devi Temple, which is in the jurisdiction of SNDP 4293 branch, as per the direction of the Ist opposite party. The complainant and his family are not co-operating with SNDP Branch for the last 6 years. They are not participating in the public meetings and the branch meetings. The contributions for the day-today activities are also not done by them. Eventhough the opposite party authorised Shanthy for the funeral ceremony. The complainant is in enmity with the SNDP Branch from long before. A complaint was forwarded by the complainant to the General Secretary of the SNDP Union on 12.01.2008 against the functioning of the branch. A report was given to the Idukki SNDP Yogam by the direction of the General Secretary on 23.03.2008. After that a lawyer notice was forwarded by the complainant to the opposite parties demanding Rs.50,000/- with 18% interest as compensation for the act of the opposite parties. That was duly replied by the opposite party. So the complaint is not bonafide and liable to be dismissed.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R5 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- Complaint is filed for getting compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and his family because of the refusal of appointing "Shanty" for the funeral ceremony of the complainant's wife. Complainant was examined as PW1. Wife of PW1 was died due to cancer on 29.12.2008 at 11.45 pm and the doctor directed to complete the funeral ceremony on the very next day itself. The matter was informed to the opposite party at 6 am on 30.12.2008 itself. But they misbehaved to the complainant. PW1 was paying the monthly membership fee regularly upto 2005. After that he was in financial crisis because of the treatment of his wife. Ext.P1(series) is the receipts issued from SNDP Branch for the monthly payments dated 20.08.2005. Earlier, the "Pathrika" for the marriage of PW1's daughter was not given by the opposite parties, so PW1 issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties for compensation on 24.04.2008, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. Copy of the notice issued to the opposite parties from the General Secretary, SNDP Yogam for requesting report in the complaint received to the General Secretary against opposite party is marked as Ext.P3.
 

PW1 had to approach the "Shanthy" at Pathinaramkandam for the service of the Shanthy, which is about 8 Km away from Prakash branch. The opposite parties never participated in the funeral function of the complainant's wife and also not done the "pattucovering" which was most essential part of the funeral ceremony. PW2 is the "Shanthy" who conducted the funeral ceremony. PW2 admitted that the matter was informed from the complainant's residence first. But the information of the death was also given from the SNDP Branch, Parkash. The Secretary and the President of the SNDP Branch did not attend the function. PW2 deposed that he is the "Shanthy of 'Karikkinmedu' temple. He is not working at Pathinaramkandam but residing there for last 16 years. PW3 is the person who informed the death to the SNDP Branch. PW3 deposed that he informed the Secretary and the Ist opposite party told that they would arrange "Shanthy" for the function. The 2^nd opposite party told his difficulty in interferring in the matter and sent to the Ist opposite party. The relatives of the PW1 called the Shanthy for the function. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the complainant and his family are not co-operating with SNDP Yogam for years. The contributions were not giving by them. So they are in enmity with the complainant. Complaint was forwarded to the General Secretary by the complainant against the branch, copy of which is Ext.R1. The copy of the Minutes Book of the branch dated 20.03.2008 is Ext.R2, which was for giving explanation for the complaint given to the General Secretary. DW1 deposed that the "Shanthy" who conducted the funeral function was from the SNDP Branch. He is known as the shanthy of "Karikkinmedu" and "Parakkadavu". Because the complainant was not co-operating with the branch, DW1 told to complainant's son to approach OP2, because the decision should be taken by both of them.

It is clear that one"Shanthy" conducted the funeral function of the complainant's wife. The only dispute is that whether the 'Shanthy' was authorised by the SNDP. As per PW1, the shanthy was from 'Pathinaramkandam" temple about 8 Km from Prakash, who came as per the request of the complainant's son. PW2, the shanthy deposed that the information was received from SNDP Branch also. But the shanthy is not working at Pathinarakamdam temple, he is residing there but working at Karikkinmedu temple. PW3 who is the person accompanied complainant's son for arranging the "shanthy". PW3 deposed that when they approached OP1, OP1 asked to approach OP2 and expressed his inability to interfere in the matter, because the complainant is not co-operating with the branch. So the decision should be taken with both of them. OP2 agreed to provide "Shanthy" for the funeral ceremony. As per DW1,the shanthy was provided from the branch. The shanthy is working at "Karikkinmedu" and "Parakkadavu" as per directions of SNDP Branch. It is very relevant that the complainant deposed as PW1 that there is no permanent "Shanthy" at Prakash branch. Only one boy authorised to enlight the traditional lamps. So we think that the funeral functions were conducted by a Shanthy who was at Pathinaramkandam. There is no permanent 'Shanthy" for Prakash kara. It is also admitted by PW1. PW2 admitted that SNDP branch informed the matter to him. The opposite parties never participated in the funeral ceremony because there is some enmity between opposite parties and the complainant. Because complainant filed Ext.R1 complaint against the opposite parties to the General Secretary. So we think that the complaint is also filed because of the personal enmities between them and no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite parties.

Hence the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2009
 

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

Sd/-
 

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Raghavan

PW2 - Gopalan Shanthy

PW3 - A.K.Sukumaran

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - C.T.Samjith

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1(series) - Receipts issued from the SNDP Branch(3 Nos)

Ext.P2 - Copy of registered Lawyer Notice dated 24.04.2008 issued by the complainant against the opposite parties

Ext.P3 - Copy of Notice issued to the opposite parties from the General Secretary, SNDP Yogam for requesting the report in the complaint dated

               12.01.2008 of complainant and 22 others

Ext.P4 - Notice

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Complainant's complaint dated 12.01.2008 addressed to the General Secretary, SNDP Yogam

Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Minutes Books of the branch dated 20.03.2008

Ext.R3 - Photocopy of reply by the opposite parties to the SNDP Union, Idukki against the complaint

Ext.R4 - Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 24.04.2008 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties

Ext.R5 - Reply Notice dated 30.04.2008 issued by the advocate of the opposite parties