Date of filing : 31.05.2019

Date of judgment : 27.11.2020

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

          This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Arijit Pal alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (referred as OP hereinafter) namely  Smt. Mousumi Maity.

            Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he had engaged OP for providing the service for the purpose of his wedding reception ceremony from 29.01.2019 to 01.02.2019. The reception ceremony of the Complainant was held at Punita Wedding House, Motilal Gupta Road, Behala Chowrasta, Kolkata-700 008, on 1.2.2019. OP had given the quotation dt.8.12.2019 and on the basis of the said quotation dt.8.12.2019 in respect of the decoration of the wedding house, providing vehicle and supply of food, etc. the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,93,029/- by cash and through Bank by way of  NEFT/IMPS. Even though OP provided food on 29.1.2019 as ordered, but on 30.1.2019 OP did not provide the vehicle as agreed i.e. model Toyota Fortuna, but, another vehicle of model  Tata Zest was provided after a long delay. However, at the request of the OP, the wedding house was handed over to the OP on 31.1.2019. But, no preparation was made by the OP in respect of the lunch on 1.2.2019  till 12 noon. Neither any step was taken towards decoration of the  wedding house. So, Complainant had to purchase the raw material from the market with the help of his friends and relatives and prepared the food for the dinner for the guests, relatives and friends. He also had to arrange for decoration work and  thus had to pay excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the said purchase. A notice was sent to the OP to refund the sum paid by the Complainant. But the OP paid no heed. So, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to refund the sum of Rs.2,93,029/- along with interest @12%p.a., to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Complainant has annexed the documents with the complaint i.e. copy of the quotation, the receipts, Bank statement, other receipts showing purchase by the Complainant on 01.02.2019 and the copy of notice dt.26.2.2019 sent to the OP.

            On perusal of the record, it appears notice was sent to the OP. But since no step was taken by the OP, vide order dt.11.11.2019, case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte.

            So, the following points require determination :

            1) Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

            2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

            Decision with reason

            Both points being co-related are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetitions. Complainant has claimed that he had engaged OP for managing and providing entire services for his wedding reception ceremony from 29.1.2019 to 01.02.2019 and as per quotation he had paid a sum of Rs.2,93,029/- but OP did not provide the service as agreed and on the day of reception, he himself with the help of his relatives and friends arranged the dinner for the guest and the decoration of the hall by paying excess amount.

            In support of his claim, Complainant has filed the quotation, money receipts as well as bank statement to substantiate that he paid Rs.2,93,000/-. He has also filed some receipts dated 01.02.2019 showing that he himself had purchased the food items and things for decoration.

            However, on a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it is evident that so far as supplying food from 29.01.2019 to 31.01.2019, there does not seem much dispute barring that OP did not provide the vehicle (Model Tata Fortuna) as agreed on 30.01.2019 but provided vehicle (Model Tata Zest); a different model.     All the receipts filed by the Complainant relating to purchase of food items and of decoration are also of dt.01.02.2019. So, it is apparent that food was supplied as agreed from 29.01.2019 to 31.01.2019.

            It is also evident from the notice dt.26.02.2019 sent by the Complainant to the OP that he has admitted out of work of Rs.50,000/- for decoration, work up to Rs.20,000/- was only done by the OP. Furthermore, as per quotation Rs.11,000/- was the charge for make-up of the bridal and other ladies. Complainant has nowhere stated that make-up was not done. So, considering the above aspect, Complainant is not entitled to refund of entire amount paid by him and after adjusting the service already provided by the OP, we find Complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,63,000/- from the OP along with interest on the said sum (in the form of compensation) from the date of payment i.e. 28.8.2018, as there has been deficiency in service on the part of OP and also as no contrary  material is forthcoming before this Commission.

            Hence

                            Ordered

            CC/260/2019 is allowed ex-parte. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,63,000/- to the Complainant along with interest on the said sum @ 9% p.a. from 28.08.2018 to till this date within sixty days in default the amount shall carry interest @ 9% till realisation. Opposite Party is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 60 days.