DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of September 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 17/11/2015
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.177/2015)
Balagovind.C
S/o.G.C.S.Menon
Deepthi,
Thottakara Post,
Ottapalam – 679 102
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Party in Person)
Vs
Sunu.R
Pisharody’s Auditorium
No.311/A, Kavalappara Post,
Shoranur – 679 523
Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Sujithkumar)
O R D E R
By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member.
Brief facts of the case.
The complainant for the purpose of the marriage of his cousin sister booked in advance on 16/12/2014 “Pisharody’s Auditorium” in East Manissey. The marriage was to be solemnized on 25/05/2015. An advance of Rs.20,000/- was also paid on December 16, 2014 by cheque and the receipt for that was also received. The auditorium is owned by Sunu.R.
Since C.Purushothaman, girl’s father, is a permanent resident of Mumbai, the complainant gave his own cheque for the purpose of advance. The receipt and accounts statement for having cleared the cheque were also enclosed along with the complaint.
It was due to unexpected reasons that this marriage was cancelled and hence the booking of the said auditorium had to be cancelled. According to the complainant, on December 26, 2014, 9 days after the booking date, this information was intimated to the Pisharody’s auditorium, cancelled the booking and asked for refund of the advance. Accordingly the staff of the auditorium informed the complainant that the booking was cancelled, but for the refund of the advance the owner of the auditorium should be called . On contacting him, unfavourable response was received, according to the complainant.
In order to make settlement in this matter, the complainant contacted noted public activist in his place, Mr.K.Sivadas, Kattanakalam House, Thottakkara, Ottapalam and through him the opposite party was contacted. Then the opposite party agreed to give back the advance amount but asked for some time. Therefore time up to March 15, 2015 was given to him by the complainant. When contacted the opposite party on this date he asked for extension of time up to 30/06/2015. On this date the complainant again contacted the opposite party; then he told the complainant finally that, since on the marriage date of May 25, 2015 there was no other marriage in the said auditorium, loss occurred to him and hence advance amount could not be refunded. Then the complainant decided to contact court and lawyer’s notices were sent to opposite party two times through Mr.N.Narayanankutty, who is an Advocate in Ottapalam Bar but the same were returned unreceived. This incident which occurred on the part of the opposite party amounted to grave deficiency of service because non happening of marriage already caused the complainant and his family to be in distress and this incident caused more mental difficulties, loss of time and loss of money to the complainant. Therefore the complainant prays to the Forum to arrive at a favourable solution and to recover from the opposite party a compensation of Rs.50,000/- including advance amount of Rs.20,000/- in addition to court and other expenses.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party.
Opposite party in his version contended that the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint was filed intentionally and experimentally to cause difficulties to opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed for in his complaint. The statements in the complaint were denied by opposite party except those specifically admitted.
That the Pisharody’s Auditorium functioning in East Manissery was booked in advance for May 25, 2015 by the complainant and that for this purpose advance amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by cheque on December 16, 2014 was correct, but that on 26/12/2014 (9 days after the booking date) due to arising of unavoidable circumstances, for the non conducting of the marriage, which was informed to opposite party that booking was cancelled and asked for refund of advance, that accordingly staff of the auditorium informed the complainant of having cancelled the booking, that to get refund of advance the owner of the auditorium should be contacted and when contacted the owner unfavourable reply was received from him - all these statements in the complaint were not correct.
That in order to arrive at a settlement in this matter through public activist Mr.Sivadas, complainant again contacted the opposite party, that then opposite party agreed to refund advance amount, but for this some time should be given to him that which was told by the opposite party time up to 15/3/2015 was given to opposite party, that on 15/3/2015 when contacted the opposite party the opposite party again requested for extension of time upto 30/6/2015, that when contacted the opposite party on 30/6/2015, opposite party finally told the complainant that on the marriage day of May 25, 2015 since there were no other marriages loss occurred to him and hence advance amount could not be refunded – all these statements in the complaint were not correct. That, then the complainant decided to approach the court and that as a prelude to this a lawyer notice was sent to opposite party two times and that the opposite party without receiving the same returned the same – these statements were false.
That this incident should be considered as a grave deficiency of service from the side of opposite party, that due to this to the complainant who was already in distress due to non happening of the proposed marriage of his cousin sister, more mental difficulties, loss of time and financial loss were caused to the complainant and that a relief should be found to him, that for this a compensation of Rs.50,000/- including advance amount of Rs.20,000/- and that litigation and other expenses should be received from the opposite party, for all these appeal was given to the Hon'ble Forum – all these statements in the complaint were not at all correct.
According to the opposite party, at the time of booking the auditorium, alongwith the receipts for advance a booklet showing terms and conditions were used to be given. In this booklet it was clearly mentioned that under no circumstances advance amount could not be refunded. Understanding this only the complainant booked the auditorium. By intentionally covering this, the complainant filed the complaint. Because this auditorium was booked for 25/5/2015, those who fixed the marriage on 25/5/2015 came to opposite party for booking this auditorium for that date were to be sent back. In Ottapalam – Shornur Regions opposite party’s auditorium is the best and people would give first preference to this auditorium for the date 25/5/2015, according to the opposite party. On 25/5/2015 “best Muhurthams” were available and therefore on this date nearby auditoriums were good auditoriums and booked. Had the complainant not booked the opposite party’s auditorium for 25/5/2015, some other marriages would have been definitely conducted in the said auditorium and the opposite party would have got the entire rent for the use of this auditorium. If after the booking of this auditorium by the complainant, the said marriage had happened, opposite party would have received the whole rent of the auditorium. But after so many days of the booking of this auditorium due to reasons, not that of opposite party the said marriage was cancelled and hence to opposite party that days auditorium rent was lost to him. As mentioned in the complaint that the complainant’s relatives marriage would not take place was informed to the opposite party after 9 days of booking and that accordingly booking was cancelled was informed from opposite party’s office – these statements were made to misunderstand the court. To cancel the booking there were correct formalities which were well known to the complainant. That the formalities were complied with was not mentioned in the complaint.
In the above case there was no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party. The statements made otherwise were not at all correct. Actually due to the act of the complainant opposite party lost one days auditorium rent and hence to the opposite party only financial loss was caused. On 25/5/2015 in the opposite party’s auditorium no celebration and function did not take place and no mention of celebration and functions having happened in the said auditorium was made in the complaint also. It was not due to deficiency of service from the part of opposite party the marriage of the relative of the complainant did not take place and also no financial loss was caused to the complainant due to deficiency of service of the opposite party. To run an organization in a proper manner correct programs should be chalked out and executed. It is the duty of the complainant to comply with the rules and regulations. The complainant has no right to ask for refund of the advance amount. There are no disputed matters in this case to be considered by this Hon'ble Forum. There is no reason for this dispute. The reason for the dispute mentioned in the complaint is not correct. Hence it is prayed that opposite party’s contention may be accepted and the complaint may be dismissed for which an order may be passed by the Hon'ble Forum.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. He also produced original documents. Opposite party filed affidavit and original documents along with photocopies. The latter were compared with originals, found correct and then returned the original documents. Exts.A1, A4 and A5 were marked and Exts.A2 & A3 were marked subject to proof from the part of the complainant. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked from the side of opposite party. Complainant also filed certified copy of Ext.A2 and filed application to mark the certified copy. Certified copy was then marked as Ext.A2.
In this case the following issues emerged
1.Whether there is any negligence / deficiencies of service / unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief ?
Issues 1 & 2
The complainant booked on December 16, 2014 opposite party’s Pisharody's auditorium for the purpose of conducting the marriage of his cousin sister on 25/5/2015. This auditorium was owned by opposite party and Rs.20,000/- was paid as an advance on December 16, 2014 by cheque and the receipt therefore was received and was marked as Ext.A1. The cheque was cleared at HDFC Bank, Ottapalam branch on 17/12/2014 vide Ext.A2. The brochure given by the opposite party was marked as Ext.A3. Two lawyer notices were sent to Mr.Sunil, Proprietor, Pisharody’s Catering Service, Kavalappara and they were marked as Ext.A5 series. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- because of the cancellation of the proposed marriage of his cousin sister which was to be solemnized on 25/5/2015 due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances. The complainant is said to have informed the opposite party on 26/12/2014 about the cancellation which is sufficiently earlier (5 months) than the date of marriage. According to the complainant opposite party took a stand not to return the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- and committed a grave deficiency of service. Hence his appeal to the Forum to order for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-from the opposite party.
The opposite party contends that the complainant has no right to ask for refund of the advance amount of Rs.20,000/-. Due to the act of the complainant opposite party lost one day’s auditorium rent for 25/5/2015 because no other function or celebration or marriage took place on that date vide Exts.B1 and B2 and hence financial loss was caused to the opposite party. Further according to the opposite party the complainant did not informed within 10 days about the cancellation of the proposed marriage. Hence opposite party’s prayer to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint.
From the above we observe that the brochure given by the opposite party does not contain any conditions of booking but only facilities offered in the Pisharody’s auditorium. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- because of the cancellation of the proposed marriage of his cousin sister, but for which no evidence is seen produced by him of his having informed the opposite party on 26/12/14. Similarly for the opposite party having taken a stand not to return the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- there is no proof. The opposite party has not mentioned in his brochure the condition that advance for the auditorium once given will not be refunded under any circumstances. Further according to opposite party the complainant did not inform within 10 days of the date of booking about the cancellation of the proposed marriage; but the complainant in his complaint mentioned that he had informed the opposite party about the cancellation of the proposed marriage on 26/12/14 – for both of them no proof was given.
Further according to the complainant it was due to unforeseen circumstances that the booking had to be cancelled but he had not clearly mentioned about the nature of the unforeseen circumstances. The opposite party also mentioned in his version and affidavit that his auditorium and Kalyanamandapam are reputed in Shornur Ottapalam region. In addition to that 25/5/2015, the date of the said proposed marriage, was a good Muhurtham date and hence all other auditoriums would have been booked. Hence if people knew that this reputed auditorium was vacant on 25/5/2015 they would have preferred to book in his auditorium for conducting their auspicious functions. Moreover, if the opposite party had tried his best to get a booking on 25/5/2015, he would have easily got a booking on that date in this auditorium.
Above all as per his affidavit complainant appealed that on 10/2/2015 opposite party called him in his mobile number (9847347911 and “ \n§fpsS _p¡nwKv Iym³ktej³ I¬t^w BtWm F¶pw, HmUntÁmdnbw 25/5/2015 XnbXnbntebv¡v thsd BÄ¡v \ÂIpIbmsW¶pw AXn\p tijw Fsâ AUzm³kv XpI XncnsI Xcmsa¶pw ]dªp.”
The complainant has also produced “CD” alongwith the affidavit which contains the conversation between the complainants and opposite party which was marked as Ext.A3 – Sub proof. But CD cannot be accepted as a solid evidence in defense of the complainant.
In the light of the above the complaint is partly allowed.
The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) being the advance payment collected from the complainant. Further the opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony undergone by the complainant together with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as litigation charges.
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of this order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of September 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Receipt issued by opposite party dated 16/12/2014
Ext.A2 (Sub Proof) - Bank Account statement issued by HDFC bank in the name
of Complainant
Ext.A3 (Sub Proof) – CD containing talk between opposite party and
complainant
Ext.A4 - Copy of Booklet
Ext.A5 series – Copy of lawyer notice dt.8/7/15 issued alongwith postal
receipts and acknowledgement card.
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of marriage register certificate at opposite party’s
Auditorium from 29/1/12
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of Receipts issuing at the time of registering the
auditorium
Ext.B3 – Photocopy of E challan receipt for payment of luxuary tax
Cost
Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
