IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 17/2018 (filed on 29/01/2018)
Petitioner : George M.C.
S/o. Chacko,
Munnanappallil House,
Thidanadu P.O.Kondoor Village,
Meenachil Taluk.
(Adv. Anil Nambudiri and
Adv. Pradapkumar)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) St. Joseph Church,
Rep. by Trustee
St. Joseph Church Thidanad,
Thidanad P.O. – 686123.
2) Fr. Jacob Vadakkel,
Vikar, St. Joseph Church Thidanad,
Thidanad P.O. – 686123.
3) Jose Kizhakkevayalil,
Kizhakkevayalil House,
Thidanad P.O. – 686123.
(For Op 1-3, Adv. Sebastian Jose)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The crux of the complainant is as follows.
Complainant is the member of the 1st opposite party church and the President of Munnanappallil Kudumbayogam. 2nd opposite party is the vicar of the opposite party church and the 3rd opposite party is the supervisor of the Parish hall of the 1st opposite party church. The parish hall of the 1st opposite party church is usually rented for the members of the 1st opposite party church and others for conducting religious and public functions. Usually the hall is given for rent alongwith amenities like hall, mike, generator and light. And the rent is being charged including the amenities and charges for the cleaning and supervisor.
The inauguration of Munnanapplli Kudumbayogam was fixed on 10-01-2017 at the parish hall of the 1st opposite party church. Complainant had paid Rs.17,500/- as rent of the parish hall and further paid Rs.500/- towards sweeping charge and Rs.600/- as supervision charge. The complainant paid such amount on 06-01-2017.
The program has started at the time fixed after the completion of religious rituals in church. Rev. Fr. Robin Vadakkel who is the vice chancellor of the Pala Archodosis, President of Thidanand Grama Panachayath and many prominent guests were participated in inaugural function. Altogether 250 persons including priests and nuns had attended the meeting. Though the light, fan etc. were working properly at the beginning of the function, however on 11.15 AM the electricity to the parish hall was disconnected. The same was informed to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, but they did not care to start the generator to restore the electricity connection in the parish hall. Moreover the toilets of the parish hall were locked by the opposite parties. Due to the act of the opposite parties, the meeting of the kudumbayogam was disrupted and participants of the functions suffered much inconvenience and discomfort. The generator was started by the opposite parties only at about 12.15 pm when the participants of the kudumbayogam strictly demanded for the same. The electricity connection was not restored even after the starting of generator. On inspection it was found that the connection of the electricity to parish hall was willfully disconnected by someone else. When after finishing the meeting the opposite parties and their henchmen locked the gate of the compound wall of the church without allowing to participants of meeting to go out.
Sri. M.J. Thomas Kurian, who is the Secretary of the Kudumbayogam has filed a suit as OS30/03 before the Hon’ble Munciff Court, Erattupetta praying for an order restraining the defendants there in from trespassing into his property and committing the act of waste therein. The Hon’ble Munciff Court has pleased to allow the prayer of the said M.J. Thomas Kurian, but thereafter on 31-03-2013 some persons trespassed into the said property and constructed a concrete cross in which it was written as Thidanad St. Joseph Church. Subsequently the said Thomaskutty had initiated prosecution proceedings against the 2nd opposite party and others. In vengeance to the above said act the opposite parties disconnected electricity connection to the parish hall.
Usually the parish hall being rented for the day starting from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm but the 2nd opposite party allowed the parish hall to the kudumbayogam up to 3.00 pm only. The rent of the parish hall includes the charges for light, mike, generator, sweeping and supervision. However the 2nd opposite party had levied Rs.3,000/- under the head of mike and Rs.500 as sweeping charge and Rs.600/- as supervisors charge apart from the rent of the parish hall. It is the bounden duty of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party to provide the electricity and other amenties to the person who has taken the parish hall on rental basis. The 2nd and 3rd opposite party has no right to disconnect the electricity and deny the alleged service and to close down the toilet after receiving rent from the complainant. By availing the service of the opposite party by taking the parish hall on the rental basis the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service by disconnecting the electricity connection to the parish hall and closing the toilet of the parish hall. The complainant and participants of the function have suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the deficient act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice from this Commission, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties appeared and filed version contenting as follows.
It is admitted that the complainant had taken out parish hall on rental basis on 10-01-2017 up to 3.00 pm for conducting the meeting of the kudumbayogam. The opposite parties have received Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for light, mike and generator to perform holy mass and other rituals in the church on the same day itself. The opposite party have received Rs.12,500/- from the complainant as rent for the parish hall. Further the complainant had paid Rs.3,000/- to the opposite parties as fee for conducting the feast in the parish hall and charges of mike operators and sweepers of the parish hall. As such the opposite parties have received Rs.17,500/- from the complainant including the rent of the parish hall and allied charges for conducting the kudumbayogam in parish hall.
There was no agreement or understanding between anybody to work the generator for the whole period of the function. The charges of the rent of parish hall does not include the fees for mike, generator, light and charges for the supervisors and mike operator. The opposite parties have not levying any additional charges from the persons who brought the mike and generator from outside to conduct any function in parish hall. It is admitted in the complaint that the program in the parish hall has started as scheduled and continued till 11.15 am without any interruption. From the beginning of the program the 3rd opposite party was present at the back of the stage to operate the mike. Before the starting of the function, some participants of the function enquired to the 3rd opposite party about the position of the changeover switch and generator. At 11.15 AM electricity to the parish hall and the surroundings were interrupted. Soon after the electricity supply interrupted 3rd opposite party informed the same to Jojo, who is the ‘Kaikaran’ of the parish hall. When the said Jojo reached the generator room, which was found that the said room was locked from outside. When he moved to collect the key from 2nd opposite party he was unlawfully restrained by the participants of the function. Due to the said act some delay was caused to operate the generator. After starting the generator it was noticed that the changeover switch was turned off by somebody else and further all the switches in the parish hall set in an off position. The 3rd opposite party had taken 10 minutes to place change over switch and other switches to on position and that caused 10 minutes delay to reinitiate electricity supply. The allegation to the contrary are false and baseless. The participants of the kudumbayogam reach at the parish hall room under the leadership of the complainant and started to abuse the 2nd opposite party by using filthy language and tried to manhandle the 1st opposite party.
The toilets were constructed at an open place to which there is an accessable way from the parish hall. The toilets for the ladies were constructed not in a mode to lock the same from our side. The allegation that the toilets for the ladies were locked from the outside is false and denied.
The opposite parties did not disconnect the electricity supply or did not placed electrical equipment in an off working condition. The meeting of the Kudumbayogam wound up at 2.00 pm inspite of that they have taken the parish hall on rental basis upto 3.00 pm. After the completion of kudumbayogam some of the participants were gathered and wandered around the ground of the church and they abused the members of the governing council of the parish. Some of the participants of the kudumbayogam was manhandled the Babychen, who is the auditor of the parish. When the police officials of the Thidanad police station intervened in the matter then only the participants of the kudumbayogm stopped their violence in the compound of the church. The allegation contrary to the above said facts is false. The police has registered a case as Crime No.28/17 against the family members of the complainant up on the statement given by one Sebastian. Thereafter the complainant had filed a complaint before the Magistrate court and got it forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr PC to the police station.
The 2nd opposite party and Kaniparambil Babichen who is the’ kaikaran’ of the 1st opposite party’s church has impleaded in the execution petition of an exparte decree in OS 30/03. They also filed an OS 206/15 as the representative of the church against M.J. Thomaskutty and obtained an injuction order in the said suit. Due to the wreck of vengeance the said Thomaskutty purposefully and intentionally disconnected the electricity supply to the parish hall and started the generator till the end of the meeting without any reason.
The parish hall has being rented out according tothe time duration of the program and not from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. At the time of beginning the complainant had agreed to take the parish hall only up to 3.00 pm. All the terms and conditions for taking the parish hall on rental basis were accepted by the complainant at the time of booking of parish hall. Key of the generator room was in the possession of ‘kapyar’ of church. The 3rd opposite party was present at the parish hall from the beginning of the function. The 3rd opposite party is authorised to hand over the hall to the lessees and operate generator whenever it is necessary.
Opposite party has never levied an exorbitant rent from the complainant and not intentionally disconnect the electricity supply to the parish hall. The toilets of the hall were constructed not in a manner to lock from outside. The opposite party has not done any act to disturb conduct of the function in parish hall. The opposite party has not done any act which caused the mental agony and hardship to the participants of the function. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed. This complaint is filed on an experimental basis in order to escape from the clutches of criminal proceedings which was pending before the First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta.
Evidence part in this case consist of deposition of pw1, pw2 and Ext.A1 to A12 from the side of the complainant and deposition of Dw1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to frame the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant, who is the President of Munnanappally kudumbayogam had booked the parish hall of the 1st opposite party church to conduct inaugural function of the said kudumbayogam on 10-11-2017. Ext.A2 is the programme notice of the said inaugural function. According Ext.A2 the said function was proposed to be started at 9.00 am with holly mass and to be concluded in the afternoon with various cultural programmes and distribution of prizes. The specific case of the complainant is that though the programme started at the right time at about 11.15 am, the electricity supply to the parish hall was disrupted. So the participants of the gathering suffered much inconvenience and hardships. It is further deposed by the PW1 that though they demanded either to restore the electricity supply or to start the generator to restore electricity supply to the parish hall, the opposite parties did not heed to their request. He further deposed that the toilets for the ladies were locked and keys of the same were kept by the opposite parties. Due to the disruption of electric supply and non functioning of fans, lights and mike in the parish hall the 224 participants of the function had suffered much humiliation and inconvenience. Pw1 deposed that due to this the organizers of kudumbayogam were compelled to windup function at 2.30 pm of the same day. He further deposed that opposite parties had received Rs.18,600/- from the complainant including the hall rent of Rs.17,500/- and Rs.500/- for sweeping and Rs.600 as supervisory charge. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. The specific case of the complainant is that vide Ext.A1 opposite party has levied twice for mike. Pw1 deposed before this Commission that the supply of electricity to the parish hall was restored only after the strict intervention by the complainant and other participants of the function. According to him the opposite parties had removed the fuse of the electricity connection to the parish hall with an intention to distrupt the smooth conduct of the said function. Pw1 further deposed before this Commission that opposite parties have acted in such a manner to accomplish their vengeance to the M.J. Thomas, who is the Secretary of Kudumbayogam in connection with a civil dispute between the said M.J. Thomas and the opposite party. According to Pw1 the said M.J. Thomas has obtained an injection order against the opposite party from the Municif Court, Erattupetta restraining the opposite parties and their henchmen from tress passing into the property of M.J. Thomas and committing any act of waste there in. Pw1 deposed before this Commission that the opposite parties and members of governing council of 1st opposite party church were in enimical terms with the said M.J. Thomaskutty and members of said Kudumbayogam. PW1 deposed that due to the said vengeance the opposite parties acted in such a manner with an intention to distort the smooth conducting of the function. In order to substantiate the case Pw2 is examined. Pw2 deposed before this Commission that he was also participant in the said function and the function was wound up 2.30 pm without completing all programs which were proposed to be performed in the function.
On the other hand opposite parties have not disrupted the supply of electricity to the parish hall. They did not lock bathrooms from outside and keep keys with them. According to the opposite parties at about 11.15 AM the electricity supply of the parish hall and surrounding area were disrupted and when the 3rd opposite party who is the supervisor of the parish hall tried to start the generator the complainant and other participants of the function obstructed him to do so and refrained him from movement for more than 10 minutes. Due to this, there was a delay of 10 minutes to restore the supply of electricity to the parish hall. He further deposed before this Commission that participants of kudumbayogam manhandled Jijo, who was ‘kapyar’ of the church. He would depose that when he reached the parish hall after starting the generator it was seen that the change over switch which was fixed at the back of the stage of the parish hall was made out of order by somebody. Electricity supply could be restored only after repositioning the change over switch in correct position. For this a little bit delay was caused to restore the electricity supply to the parish hall after starting the generator. He further deposed that opposite party has not levied any extra amount or charged double in any head from the complainant.
On perusal of Ext.A1 we can see that the complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- towards the expenses in church including light, mike and generator etc. The rent of the parish hall was Rs.12,500/- as per Ext.A1. It is further recorded inExt.A1 that Rs.3,000/- as the charge for mike. On the over leaf of theExt.A1 it is further recorded Rs.500/- as sweeper and Rs.600/- as supervisor. Dw1 deposed before this Commission that Rs.2,000/- which is levied towards the expense which was incurred to conduct the holly mass and other religious rituals in church. Pw1 admitted that the functions of the kudumbayogam has started at 9.00 am with the holly mass in the church and other rituals. The Dw1 admitted that Rs.13,000/- which is levied from them as the charges for mike which was used in the parish hall. According to the opposite party if the organisors of the functions brought the mike from outside the church would not receive any charge for mike from such organizers. The specific case of the opposite party is that if the food were supplied in the parish hall they would charge the fee for cleaning the hall for supervision. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had not a case that they would not have food in the hall. Moreover the complainant did not adduce any evidence to show that opposite parties had charged them than the other persons who took the said parish hall on rental basis. The specific case of Pw1 is that due to the institution Of OS No.3/03 against the opposite parties they were in enemity terms with him, so that the opposite parties tried to distort the smooth progress of the function. But the pw1 did not adduce any evidence to show that he had obtained a decree against the opposite parties. Ext.A8 proves that the opposite parties here in had instituted a suit against the Pw1 and the defacto complainant here in and another person before the Munciff Court, Erattupetta. Moreover it is pertinent to note that Ext.A5 proves that altogether 224 persons were participated in function on 10-01-2017. On perusal of Ext.A5 we can see that George M.C. who is the defacto complainant was not a participant in the said function. The complaint is filed by the complainant who was not a participant of the said function raising the allegation against the act of the opposite parties. The Pw1 and Pw2 deposed that all the programs which were proposed to be conducted in the gathering of kudumbayogam was performed and none of the programs which was proposed to be performed was excluded. Ext.A4 photographs prove that the honoring and prize distribution which were proposed to be at the concluding session of the gathering of the kudumbayogam was done. Moreover the complainant did not adduce any evidence or tried to bring out any evidence to prove that the toilets were locked from outside and there by denied the use by the participants of the gathering. The complainants failed to bring evidence on record to prove that the electricity supply was distrupted only to the parish hall and not to the surrounding areas. On a thoughtful evaluation of evidence on record and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this 16th day of April, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 : Thomaskutty M.J.
Pw2 : Johnson Abraham
Witness from the side of complainant
Dw1 : Jose K.C.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Receipt dtd.06-01-17 issued by opposite party
A2 : Invitation letter of Moonanappallil kudumbayogam dtd.18-11-2016
A3 : Newspaper page of Deepika sating the Moonnanappalli kudumbayogam
A4 : Photos of kudumbayogam dtd.10-01-17printed on a sheet (27 nos.)
A5 : Attendance register dtd.10-01-17 of Munnanappallil Kudumbayogam
dtd.10-01-2017.
A6 : Copy of complaint dtd.12-01-17 filed before the Circile Inspector of
police, Erarattupetta.
A7 : Receipt of petition No.5537/17 dtd.13-01-17 from Erattupetta Circile
Office.
A8 : Copy of order (IA 663/2015 in OS 206/15) dtd.18-02-16 from the Cort of
the Munsiff, Erattupetta.
A9 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.14-03-2017
A10 : Series of postal receipts (3 nos.)
A11 : Series of postal AD card (3 nos.)
A12 : Receipt dtd.13-01-17 from Jos Digital Studio & photostat
A13 : Power of attorney
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
