KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 118/2024

JUDGMENT DATED: 25.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 288/2022 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Secretary, Sri Mulam Club, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

(By Adv. A. Santhosh Kumar, Adv. Riaz & Adv. Anand A.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Suresh Kumar, Devidurga, CLRA-85, Chappil Lane, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 009.

                               (Party in person)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 288/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  The respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  The respondent booked a Banquet Hall of the appellant for the purpose of his daughter’s engagement function to be conducted on 07.04.2022 and the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand only) to the appellant on 22.10.2021 for the said purpose.  The engagement function was scheduled to be held in between 9.30 am and 11.35 am on 07.04.2022.  The guests and the relatives of the respondent attended the function.  The respondent would contend that there was no proper electricity supply in the complex on that day.  The respondent brought the said fact to the notice of the appellant on several times.  However, the appellant did not take any step to make alternative arrangements.  Due to the non-availability of proper power supply, the photographers and the videographers could not take photos and videos of the memorable function properly.  In view of the above, the respondent would allege deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. 

3.  Even though notice was received by the appellant from the District Commission, the appellant did not incline to file any version before the District Commission.

4.  The respondent filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for the respondent.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  Therefore, the District Commission directed the appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as costs.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 

5.  Heard both sides and perused the records.

6.  The respondent booked the Banquet Hall on 22.10.2021 for the engagement function of his daughter. Exhibit A1 would show that the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand only) for the booking of the hall. The function was on 07.04.2022.  The grievance of the respondent was that there was no proper electricity supply in the complex and hence the photographers and videographers could not take the photos and videos properly, as the appellant refused to provide any alternative arrangement for the power supply. Exhibit A2 is the lawyer notice and Exhibit A3 is the reply to the lawyer notice. 

7.  No version was filed by the appellant.   He also did not incline to cross-examine the respondent.

          8.  The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was a clause in the agreement signed by the parties that the appellant would not be responsible for the failure of electricity supply and hence the appellant is not liable to compensate the respondent.  The learned counsel has further submitted that the said aspect is clearly stated in Exhibit A3 reply notice and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          9.  It is to be noted that no such agreement had been produced before the Commission by the appellant, even though there is an averment to that effect in Exhibit A3 reply notice. That apart, the appellant neither filed any version nor inclined to cross-examine the respondent.  If at all there is any such clause in the agreement, the said clause would reflect only one sided term of agreement, which is entirely in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.  Therefore, the said clause cannot be acted upon.  The above view gains support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna and Others reported in 2021 KHC 6012 : 2021 (3) SCC 241).  In the said circumstances, the argument in this regard cannot be sustained.

10.  The contention of the respondent is that there was no proper electricity supply in the complex and that the appellant refused to provide any alternative arrangement for the power supply and consequently, the photographers and videographers could not take the photos and videos of the engagement function properly. The respondent reiterated the said contention in the proof affidavit as well. Since the respondent was not cross-examined, his evidence remains as unchallenged testimony.  There is absolutely no evidence before the commission inconsistent with or contrary to the above evidence of the respondent.

11.  Having gone through the contentions of the respondent, in the light of the evidence of the respondent, we are satisfied that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, as the appellant failed to provide alternative arrangement when the power supply was cut off, to enable the photographers and videographers to take the photos and videos of the engagement function properly.  In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission in this regard.  The compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission also appear to be proportionate.  For the said reason, we find no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission as well.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed and the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 288/2022 stands confirmed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER