STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS
PORT BLAIR
Present : Justice P.N. Sinha, President
Shri Bimal Behari Chakravarty, Member
Appeal No. 4 of 2009
The Hindi Sahitya Kala Parishad,
A&N Island, Port Blair,
Through Secretary + 2 Others
………………. (Appellant)
VS
Shri Ravindran,
S/o Late Achutta Kurup,
R/o Calicut Village, Port Blair
………………………Respondent
JUDGEMENT
Dated: 30.09.10
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.07.09 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Andaman (hereinafter call the District Forum) in C.D.Case No.47 of 2007 whereby the appellants were directed by the District Forum to pay an amount of Rs.67,150/- to the respondent for deficiency in service.
The facts of the case, in brief is that the respondent booked the marriage hall of the appellants on 13.08.07 for reception of his daughter’s marriage which was scheduled on 24.10.07 and in all he paid Rs.6750/- as booking fee and service tax. He had also deposited of Rs.500/- as security and he obtained the receipt No.270 dated 13.08.07 for such booking. For the purpose of decoration of the marriage hall, the respondent contacted one decorator namely, Afzal Decorator 10 days before the fixed date for the reception when he learnt from the decorator that he had already received an order from owners of Rajeswari Mahal groups for decoration of the hall on 24.10.07. Being anxious he went to the office of the appellants for enquiry and found that in the booking register some manipulation had been done and, the hall was booked in favour of Rajeswari Mahal. He was further told that some body had cancelled the booking made by the respondent though the respondent or his family members or relatives never cancelled the booking of the marriage hall. The respondent had printed 3000 invitation cards on 28.08.07 for the marriage reception. The respondent was called by the S.H.O., Aberdeen P.S on a complaint made by the Rajeswari Mahal and the Officer of the P.S tried to convince the respondent to arrange the marriage reception of his daughter in any other place. He expressed his inability to do so since invitation cards were already distributed and all arrangements for the marriage including preparation of food was complete. The appellants provided him a very small space in a small tent with some chairs. On 24.10.07 due to the mistake committed by the appellants some guests went into the marriage reception which was organized by Rajeswari Mahal and some guests returned back without any food and some guests were misbehaved by other persons. The conduct of the appellants resulted into serious mental agony to him and his reputation and prestige was lowered. Accordingly, the respondent as complainant lodged the complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for damage of his reputation and prestige, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and he also prayed for refund of booking fee of Rs.6750/- and also claimed Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
The appellants as opposite parties before the District Forum contested the complaint by filing a written objection wherein they denied all the material averments of the complaint, and inter-alia contented that the marriage hall is very big hall and on various occasions during the rush period two marriage receptions are being performed and the marriage hall consists of two different entrance and more than three thousand people can be accommodated at a time in the marriage hall and as such both the functions were allowed to be performed on the same date. Nobody faced any inconvenience as the said hall had enough infrastructures such as cooking utensils, chairs and other items so as to perform two different parties by different people at a time. The appellants provided equal facilities to both the parties whose receptions were held on that date. The appellants institution is the oldest institution performing the marriage reception and at no juncture any inconvenience was ever claimed by any other person ever before. There was no deficiency on the part of the appellants. The complainant had lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the appellants.
Before the District forum both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of respondent complainant, the complainant Shri.Ravindran, was examined as PW-1 and on behalf of appellant opposite party Jay Bahadur Sharma was examined as OPW-1. Documents marked as exhibits 1 to 6 were admitted in evidence on behalf of respondent besides some photographs as material exhibits I to IV. On behalf of the appellant opposite party entry in the booking register was marked as exhibit-‘A’ to show the date of booking for the marriage hall made by the respondent and the other party namely, Rajeswari Mahal. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and considering evidence and materials in records the District Forum directed the appellant to pay a total sum of Rs. 67,150/- to the respondent which includes Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.6750/- as refund of booking fee and litigation cost of Rs.400/-.
Before us Mr.D.Illango, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that not a single marriage invitee or guest was examined by the respondent and at the same time neither the cook or his associates examined. Non-examination of these vital witnesses makes it clear that the respondent failed to prove number of invitees attended the ceremony on 24.10.07 and the quantum of food that was prepared on the day of the marriage ceremony. It was further contended before us that the respondent gave his consent to complete the marriage reception at a different space and the appellants had provided all the facilities to the respondent without demanding any extra payment. The District Forum failed to consider that the respondent did not lodge any complaint before the Parishad or before any other authority to establish the fact that he was aggrieved by the inaction or action of the appellants. The bride and the bridegroom were placed in a separate dias/stage at the time of marriage reception and the marriage ceremony was conducted with the consent of the respondent. The respondent failed to establish that he suffered mental agony and that his reputation and prestige was lowered. The District Forum towards the end of its judgement before the order portion used the term “which are deserved for a lesson to opposite party” which signifies that the forum was bias towards the appellants. The order to refund booking amount wholly was also bad since the respondent had used the venue for marriage reception. The order of the District Forum being not in accordance with law and being tainted with bias requires to be set aside.
On the contrary, Mr. N.A.Khan, the learned advocate for the respondent submitted before us that the respondent booked the marriage hall on 13.08.07 and his receipt number was 270 whereas, Rajeswari Mahal booked the marriage hall on 27.09.07 and their receipt No. was 287. The other place which was offered to the respondent was insufficient and inadequate to meet the necessary requirements for holding a marriage reception and the alternative space provided to the respondent was not at all comparable to the large and vast area of the marriage hall. Exhibit-6, the receipt of the printers, issued in favour of the respondent shows that the respondent placed order for printing 3000 marriage invitation cards with cover. The main entrance of the venue is for the marriage hall and as such the guests who attended the ceremony were confused as in the invitation card marriage hall was specifically mentioned. There is no ground to come to the conclusion that the guests would use the back side to enter the reception and due to the confusion and misunderstanding many guests returned without taking food; and to establish it the examination of the guests is not necessary and evidence of PW-1 is sufficient to prove it. The respondent had to accept the alternative space as a father he had to complete the marriage ceremony of his daughter otherwise, he would have been in more trouble and his reputation and prestige would have been at stake. The District Forum made no mistake by passing the impugned order and the amount awarded by the District Forum should be enhanced as it is a clear case of deficiency in service and showing favour to rich people. It was well established that entire spacious marriage hall was booked by the respondent long ago but, due to intervention of rich people later on he was provided with very narrow space. The appeal filed by the appellants has no merit and the order passed by the District Forum should be modified and the amount of compensation should be enhanced.
We have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties; the materials on record and duly considered the submissions made by learned advocates for both the parties. It is admitted that the respondent booked the marriage hall of the appellants on 13.08.07 for the marriage reception of his daughter which was fixed on 24.10.07. This is evident from evidence PW-1 Shri Ravindran, the evidence of OPW-1 Jay Bahadur Sharma and the booking receipt (exhibit-1) and the entries in the booking register of marriage hall of the appellants (exhibit-A). Evidence of OPW-1 makes it clear that the respondent had booked the marriage hall for the marriage party of his daughter and his evidence as well as exhibit-A reveals that the appellants allowed Rajeshwari Mahal to book the marriage hall much afterwards on 27.09.07 whose reception was also fixed on the same date i.e on 24.10.07. The evidence of PW-1, OPW-1 and the photographs marked as material exhibits I to IV clearly prove that the appellants allowed Rajeswari Mahal to use the marriage hall on 24.10.07, though Rajeswari Mahal booked the marriage hall more than a month after the booking was made by the respondent. The deficiency in service on the part of the appellants was established and manifests the moment they allowed booking of the marriage hall in favour of Rajeswari Mahal subsequently and, allowed the latter party to use the marriage hall and denied the respondent use of the marriage hall, who in fact booked the same much earlier. The respondent was denied service by the appellants which the appellants were duty bound to render to him when he booked the marriage hall long before booking by Rajeswari Mahal.
Here, we like to refer some salient features of the oral evidence adduced by the parties which would prove that the appellants conduct and action clearly established deficiency in service. Cross examination of PW-1 reveals that the other marriage party was provided with the main marriage hall whereas, he was provided with only a small tent and small rooms. His evidence also proves that the space provided to him was not within the main marriage hall and the said space was towards back side of the stage or dias of the main marriage hall. Evidence of OPW-1 proves that on the same day of marriage reception of daughter of the respondent, the party namely Rajeswari Mahal was allowed to use the hall by them. In cross-examination OPW-1 admitted that from the respondent they received charges of the marriage hall on 13.08.07 and from Rajeswari Mahal the charges were taken on 27.09.07. He also admitted that from the register marked as exhibit-A it is evident that serial No. of receipt of respondent was 270 whereas receipt of Rajeswari Mahal was 287.
OPW-1 tried to lead into evidence that they allowed Rajeswari Mahal to use the marriage hall since there was consent from the respondent. We find no substance or truth in such evidence and in our opinion OPW-1 made such submissions only to save their skin. In cross-examination OPW-1 admitted that except his oral version he has no document to prove that respondent had given them consent to allow Rajeswari Mahal to arrange the marriage reception in the hall on the same day. He also admitted that in the register (exhibit-A) he did not record the alleged consent of the respondent. PW-1 in his evidence stated that he never gave consent to allow Rajeswari Mahal to use the marriage hall and to surrender his right of holding marriage reception of his daughter in the marriage hall.
We have carefully checked the marriage hall booking register and we find that seldom there are two entries or booking of the marriage hall for the same day. It is also evident from the exhibit-A that where there are two entries, there is specifically mention of separate times for use of the hall by indicating one party to use during the day time and the other party during the night. During evidence entry dated 20.04.08 was confronted to OPW-1 and question was put to him that the said entries were manipulated. He denied manipulation but, stated in evidence that entry of serial No.20 in April 2008 was booking for two marriages but at different times i.e., one at day time and other at night. The specific entry for the marriage reception dated 24.10.07 which is exhibit-A clearly shows that on that date both marriage receptions were marked or entered during day time.
When the entries in the register do not show two marriages at different times, the conduct of the appellants making entry of latter booking party namely, Rajeswari Mahal for marriage reception at day time was clearly deficiency in service. From evidence of PW-1 it has been transpired that Rajeswari Mahal is a group of rich people and elite of Port Blair town. It appears that the status of Rajeswari Mahal played a major role in this matter and, as they were rich people and were superior in society the appellants allowed Rajeswari Mahal, who booked the marriage hall much afterwards the booking of marriage hall by respondent, to use the hall on 24.10.07. It is also evident from evidence and materials on record that the respondent was allowed very small space i.e., two/three small rooms and a very small tent and that too in open air, and the space allotted to the respondent was wholly inadequate and in-sufficient to fulfill his desire of celebrating the marriage reception of his daughter with pomp and grace.
We find no merit in the submission of learned advocate for the appellants that sufficient space was provided to the respondent to perform the marriage reception of his daughter. The moment the appellants allowed Rajeswari Mahal to use the marriage hall on 24.10.07 at the same time i.e., day time, there was deficiency in service on the part of appellants. It cannot be ignored that much earlier than 27.09.07 the respondent had booked on 13.08.07 the marriage hall for reception of his daughter during day time and there was no entry in the marriage booking register showing entry of two different parties to use the marriage hall at same time. They were deficient in service more by allowing Rajeswari Mahal to use the marriage hall during day time on 24.10.07 and denying the respondent use of the marriage hall during day time on the same day. There was more deficiency in service on the part of appellants as the space provided to the respondent was in-sufficient and wholly inadequate to perform the marriage reception of his daughter. We cannot ignore the humiliation and plight of the father whose daughter’s marriage reception was fixed on particular date and marriage invitation cards indicating time and venue were also distributed to relatives and guests and on the particular date of reception it was found by him that the marriage hall, which he booked for the marriage reception, was allowed to a different party by the appellants.
We are unmoved by the submissions of appellants that there were two separate entrance in their institution and there was no chance of confusion of guests and relatives of respondent. In the marriage invitation card (exhibit-2) printed by respondent it was clearly mentioned that the reception would be held between 11.00 A.M. to 3.30 P.M. at Hindi Sahitya Kala Parishad Hall. Few relatives and guests after attending the hall found that marriage reception of different party was in progress and it was bound to create confusion amongst the guests and relatives. There was no need of any separate evidence from cook or his helpers to prove that there was no in-convenience to the guests, relatives or other invitees of respondent. Exhibit-6 proves that respondent placed order for printing 3000 marriage invitation cards for the marriage ceremony and reception of his daughter.
The discussion that we have made above clearly proves that the appellants were clearly deficient in service and the District Forum made no mistake by directing payment of compensation by appellants to respondent for deficiency in service.
The observation of the District Forum towards end of the judgement by using the words “which are deserved for a lesson to the opposite party” does not prove that the District Forum was bias. In appropriate cases punitive orders can be directed against the defaulting party either by the District Forum or by the State Commission. Considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, we do not find that the District Forum was bias towards the appellants by using such words.
In our opinion there was a mistake on the part of District Forum by directing refund of entire Rs.6750/- as booking fee and service tax of marriage hall. Entire amount cannot be refunded to the respondent since he had used the tent and portion of rooms of the appellants in performing marriage reception of his daughter on 24.10.07. The evidence of PW-1, OPW-1 and the photographs (material exhibits I to IV) make it clear that about one-third area in comparison to area of marriage hall was allotted to the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to refund of Rs.4500/- out of Rs.6750/- for the booking and service tax of the marriage hall. The amount of compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- assessed by the District Forum for deficiency in service is proper and we find no ground to reduce it or enhance it though respondent filed application for enhancement. The amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment assessed by the District Forum to the tune of Rs.10,000/- is also proper and we find no ground either to reduce it or to enhance it. In our opinion the respondent is entitled to litigation cost as he was compelled to lodge the complaint for the deficiency in service of appellants and had to take the help of lawyer both before the District Forum and this Commission. We assess the litigation cost to Rs.5000/- and appellants shall pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent. The respondent is thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service , compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment, Rs.5000/-as cost of the litigation, Rs.4500/- as refund of booking fee and service tax for the marriage hall totalling Rs.69,500/- from the appellants.
The judgement and order of the District Forum is accordingly modified and the appellants are directed to pay 69,500/- to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of this judgement and order and such payment shall be made or deposited before the District Forum.
In view of the discussion made above we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is disposed of accordingly with modification of the order of the District Forum as indicated above. The application or cross appeal filed by the respondent also stands disposed of in view of our observations made above.
Send down the records of the C.D.Case No.47 of 2007 along with a copy of this judgement and order to the District Forum for information and necessary action.
The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of appeal be returned to the learned advocate for the appellants on proper receipt after completing the necessary formalities.
