Petitioner's case is as follows:

The petitioner for the purpose of conducting the marriage ceremony of his daughter and its reception reserved an auditorium managed by the Devaswam Managing Committee by paying Rs.500/- as advance. After reserving the auditorium, the petitioner completed the invitation of persons and other arrangements for the marriage. But the first opposite party intimated the petitioner by a letter dated 12.12.04 that they have cancelled the reservation made on 6.11.04. Due to the said act the petitioner was compelled to change the venue for which the petitioner incurred an expense of Rs.1500/- as printing charged. The reason put forward for the cancellation of the reservation was that the petitioner had not collected the 'Pathrika'. According to the petitioner several marriages were conducted in the very same auditorium without complying the customary notes of the SNDP Yogam. The petitioner stated that his daughter's marriage was an inter caste marriage and the same was known to the managing committee members at the time of reservation of auditorium. Alleging the decision of the managing committee as illegal the petitioner filed this petition praying for Rs.97,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as cost of the petition.

The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that the opposite party Siva darsana devaswom is not a registered body and therefore it cannot be such in its name. The opposite parties contented that the first opposite party Devaswom is owned by the Ezhava committee of the locality. The opposite parties further contented that as the petitioner is conducting the

-3-

marriage of his daughter against the practice of the committee and the by laws of SNDP, the members constituting the Devaswom opposed to give the auditorium to the petitioner and the managing committee forced to cancel the decision to give the auditorium. The opposite party again contented that the community cannot be rent on the auditorium for anyu purpose which goes against the interest of the community. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the case with their costs.

Points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

   opposite party.

2. Reliefs and costs.

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the petitioner and opposite party and exhibit A1 to A11 and B1 to B7.

Point No.1.

The complainant stated that he reserved the auditorium managed by the Devaswam Managing Committee on 6.11.2004 by paying Rs.500/- in advance for conducting his daughter's marriage ceremony and reception on 2.1.2005. The complainant averred that after reserving the auditorium he completed the invitation of persons and other arrangements the marriage. As per the petitioner's averment the opposite parties cancelled the reservation of the auditorium by a letter dated 12.12.2004 and the petitioner was compelled to change of venus the petitioner incurred expenses for the following main items.

 

-4-

(i) Printing another set of invitation cards.

(ii) Autorikshaw fair and taxi fair spent for informing the invites about the change of venue.

(iii) Constructing pandal, temporary sheets and kitchen.

(iv) Levelling clearing and repairing the place of venue and the pathway to the same.

Lining changes for the water tanks and cost of water.

(v) Hiring charges for the generator, micks set, light filling and price of disel.

The opposite parties' counsel submitted that as the petitioner decided to conduct the marriage of his daughter of SNDP, the member constituting the Devaswam opposed to give the auditorium to the petitioner. The counsel for the opposite parties farther submitted that the letters given by the SNDP Voith movement, Pampdy branch and SND pampady branch secretary forced them to cancel the reservation in order to avoid many attractive. The opposite parties contented that notice showing the cancellation of the auditorium reservation' was given on 12.12.2004 which was far ahead of the marriage. The opposite parties further contented that the stay of loss and the petition itself is only a creked up one.

If the community is very particular not to rent out the auditorium for any purposes which goes against the interest of the community, Then they should have maintained some guidelines regarding the breaking of the auditorium. In this case the opposite parties has not issued any guidelines to the complainant. No such rules, regulations or guidelines is placed on record to prove that 'suppervision of material facts regarding a marriage' and the 'non collection of pathrika' will lead to the cancellation of the auditorium reservation. Moreover as per exhibit A9(a) which is a letter issued by SNDP Branch No.265, pampady to the secretary of

-5-

Shivadarsana auditorium. The marriage of the petitioner's son was conducted in the very same auditorium even though no 'pathrika' was taken. The opposite parties counsel admitted in the course of arguments that the said auditorium is given to other castes also for conducting marriage and other functions. That means several marriage were conducted in the very same auditorium without complying the castomacy sites of the SNDP Yogom. Then what was the speciality of this marriage in dispute.

The receipt issued by the opposite parties is marked exhibit A1. Exhibit A1 shows that Rs.500/- was received towards advance. After receiving advance and issuing receipt the opposite parties would have to permitted to conduct the marriage ceremony of his daughter in the auditorium. The petitioner was made to believe and at last there has been a case of cheating complied with deficiency in service.

In view of wheat has been stated above are of the opinion that the art of opposite parties in not providing the assured service amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2.

In view of the findings in point No.1, the petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for reliefs sought for. So, we are of the opinion that what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony and financial loss to the petitioner for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the petitioner. Considering the deficiency in service adopted by the opposite parties and the facts of the case, we are of the view that awarding as sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in favour of the

-6-

complainant would meet the ends of justice.

In the result the following order is passed. The opposite parties are ordered to refund the advance amount Rs.500/- to the petitioner. They are also ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings to the petitioner.

This order will be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.