Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.03.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony as well as Rs. 1,00,000/- for social defamation of the complainant and also direct to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that the marriage ceremony of his brother – in – law was fixed on 08.03.2014. The complainant has arranged a Rath for Bride Groom on the occasion of the aforesaid marriage on 08.03.2014. Thereafter the complainant has entered into an agreement with opposite party who is proprietor of Shree Mohan Band and a satta ( agreement ) was executed which has been annexed as annexure – 1.
It is further case of the complainant that despite his best efforts the opposite party did not arrange rath for Barat ceremony as per agreement vide annexure – 1 and due to this the complainant suffered from mental agony and also his prestige was lowered in the midst of society. Thereafter the complainant has given legal notice which was received by opposite party stating all the aforesaid facts but no action was taken by opposite party.
It appears from the judicial record that on 16.10.2014 Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of opposite party but despite allowing several adjournments no written statement has been filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From bare perusal of annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that the complainant has entered into an agreement with opposite party vide annexure – 1 for arranging a rath for attending Barat ceremony for the bride groom on 08.03.2014.
From bare perusal of annexure – 3 (i.e. the reply of legal notice of the complainant on behalf of opposite party), it is crystal clear that the aforesaid rath could not be made available to the complainant because there was traffic blockade due to heavy rush on Patna Gandhi Setu. Thus it is crystal clear that the aforesaid rath was not made available for Barat ceremony for the bride groom by opposite party on 08.03.2014.
It is needless to say that the opposite party was bound to work according to term of annexure – 1 for which the opposite party has taken Rs. 1,000/- by way of advance in which he has failed.
It goes without saying that in our society the rath etc. are integral part of Barat ceremony and this is attached with the respect of the family of bride groom.
As there is no written statement on behalf of opposite party hence we have no option but to rely on the facts asserted by the complainant in his complaint petition.
We therefore find and hold that the aforesaid act of the opposite party has resulted in the deficiency for which opposite party is liable.
We therefore direct the opposite party to return Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within the period of one month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of one month.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
