Complainant, Sri. Balan has filed the case against Secretary, Sreekandeswara Kshethrayogam and Sri. Peethambharan, Melsanthi, Sreekandeswara Kshethram alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant’s case is that he had decided to have his daughter’s marriage at Sreekandeswara Kshethram on 20-1-07.  The complainant had requested opposite party-2 to be present at the auspicious ceremony to bless his daughter and give away in marriage.  The complainant had informed all his friends and relatives that opposite party-2 has assured his esteemed presence on the marriage day.  But on 24-1-07 the marriage day opposite party-2 was not present.  But some other person had taken the charge of conducting the ceremony.  Complainant had great mental agony due to this reason.  Complainant had wished the auspicious presence of opposite party-2 for his daughter’s marriage, in the belief that his daughter will be specially blessed by opposite party-2.  Complainant is alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party and is seeking compensation for the mental agony and hardship he had to suffer.

            Opposite party-1 and 2 had filed a joint version denying all the averments in the complaints except those that are explicitly admitted.  Opposite party-1 is the Secretary of the temple committee.  The service of opposite party-1 will not come under the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief from opposite party-1.  Second opposite party is the chief priest of the temple.  The complainant has no right to seek for relief against the opposite party-2.  The opposite parties-1 and 2 have not received any consideration for conducting the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the complainant.  Hence the complainant will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Opposite party-1 had received a complaint on 25-1-07 from the petitioner, for which reply was sent.  The temple do not depute any one particular priest to conduct the marriage ceremony because no partiality is shown to any of the believers approaching the temple.  Opposite parties have not done anything to cause mental agony to the complainant.  No deficiency of service has occurred on the part of opposite parties.  The temple will entrust any one of the seven priests to conduct the wedding.  All the seven priests are qualified enough to conduct marriage ceremony.  When a priest is booked for conducting the marriage, no specific name will be mentioned.  Anyone of the seven priests will conduct the marriage.  Second opposite party has not received any consideration from the complainant.  If at all the complainant had paid any money and received receipt, it is for booking of the hall and to register the marriage.  As the opposite parties have not received any consideration from the complainant and there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs to the opposite parties.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

            PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side.  RW1 was examined on opposite parties’ side.  No documents marked on opposite parties’ side.

            The case of the complainant is that he had approached the opposite parties in connection with the marriage of his daughter.  He had especially requested opposite party-2 to perform the marriage ceremony of his daughter.  But opposite party-2 was not present on the marriage day.  The complainant had suffered mental agony because of the non presence of the chief priest to perform his daughter’s marriage function.  Opposite parties have taken the stand that the complainant has not paid any consideration hence he will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant has produced Ext.A1 and A2 which are two receipts.  According to the complainant he has paid Rs.12346/- and Rs.125/- for performing the marriage ceremony.  Opposite parties contended that Ext.A1 is the receipt for booking the hall and Ext.A2 is the receipt for registering the marriage.  The complainant’s daughter’s marriage was conducted from the temple premises as decided earlier.  There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party-1or opposite party-2 for performing the function.  The temple has 7 priests for conducting the ceremony.  Any one of the 7 priests cannot be booked earlier.  The temple committee does not show any partiality towards the believers by allotting one particular person to those who have requested.  The complainant has not produced any proof to show that he has requested for opposite party-2 particularly.  There is no proof also to show that he has paid any consideration towards opposite party-1 and 2.  The Forum is of the opinion that there is no merit in the case put forward by the complainant.  Hence he is not entitled for any relief sought in the petition.

            In the result the petition is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of November 2009.

                                          Sd/-                                         Sd/-

                                    MEMBER                                MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1.  Receipt dt. 27-7-06.

A2.  Receipt dt. 21-1-07.

A3.  Photocopy of letter dt. 5-12-06.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

                        Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Balan. N. (Complainant)

PW2.  Sowmachandran, Pinnanth House, Jail Road, Calicut-4.

Witness examined for the opposite party.

                        None.

                                                                        Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

                                    (Forwarded/By order)

                            SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.