COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 01st SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1433/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT H.S. Shekar,<br /> S/o. Siddegowda,<br /> Aged about 29 years,<br /> R/at No. 6, “Sambrama Nilaya”<br /> Byatarayana Pura,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (D. Jayarama Reddy)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary,<br /> B.W.S.S.B.,<br /> 1st Floor,<br /> Cauvery Bhavan,<br /> Bangalore – 09.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Chairman,<br /> B.W.S.S.B.,<br /> Cauvery Bhavan,<br /> Bangalore – 09.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (M.S. Narayan)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant booked Rajatha Bhavana belonging to the OP for the purpose of celebration of his marriage by paying an amount of Rs.89,152/-. OP accepted the said amount and reserved the Rajatha Bhavana for 10.02.2008 and 11.02.2008. OP is expected to clean the whole Rajatha Bhavana, keep it neat and tidy with all amenities like electricity supply and water, etc. As promised by OP they are expected to receive the keys of the said hall atleast by 4 p.m. on 10.02.2008. When they went to said hall on 10.02.2008 in the afternoon, OP did not handed over the keys till 7 p.m. Due to this inordinate delay complainant could not get prepared the food for the guests and also unable to decorate the said hall, not only that sanitary connection was completely blocked, there was no water supply. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP and its officials looking after the said Rajatha Bhavana to rectify the said defects and handover the keys immediately, went in futile. Due to the carelessness and hostile attitude of the OP officials, complainant was put to lot of embarrassment and inconvenience in celebrating his marriage. Though OP collected all the necessary charges, but failed to extend the expected service. Thus he felt mental agony, financial loss and deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said hall was handed over to the complainant marriage party at 3.30 p.m. itself, varapooja was conducted by 4.30 p.m. The said hall was neat, clean and hygienic, there was a supply of water as well as electricity. The allegation of blockage of sanitary is false. The water bills, electrical bills received by the OP with respect to the said date speaks to availability of the said facility on that day at that time. In addition to that the compaq disc, photographs clearly goes to show that the hall was decorated, everything went fine, marriage was celebrated as per the desire and expectation of the complainant. The other allegations are false. While vacating the said hall complainant is expected to get it cleaned, but he failed to do so. When the attenders of the said Rajatha Bhavana insisted the complainant to comply the said conditions as a counterblast, this false complaint is filed against the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence along with two witnesses and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has booked the Rajatha Bhavana hall belonging to the OP for the celebration of his marriage to be held on 10.02.2008 and 11.02.2008. It is also not at dispute that complainant paid the rentals of Rs.89,152/- to the OP. Now the grievance of the complainant is that OP is expected to hand over the keys of the said Rajatha Bhavana at least by 4 p.m. so as to facilitate the marriage party to get themselves prepare the food and have decoration, etc., to celebrate the reception in a grand manner. According to the complainant the said Rajatha Bhavana was not cleaned. The repeated requests made by him to the attender of the Rajatha Bhavana to handover the keys, went in futile. Not only that there was a sanitary connection blockage, water supply was not there. On insistence he got the keys only at 7 p.m. under the circumstances he has faced with so many problems in arranging the said reception to his satisfaction and expectation. Thus he felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course to corroborate his say he got filed the affidavit of two persons in his favour, one is his brother-in-law and another is a well wisher of the complainant. Both are interested witnesses. If really complainant faced such a horrible problem in getting the food prepared and in decorating the said hall for the reception, the best person to support and speak about it is the cook whom he engaged and decorator. Unfortunately none of them have filed the evidence in support of the complainant. Under such circumstances the bare and vague allegations of the complainant and the interested testimony of his witnesses rather alone cannot be believed. When the reception is arranged at about 7 p.m. We do not think in the ordinary course of time, it is possible for the marriage party to get prepare the food within few minutes and decorate the hall within few minutes. But here the contention of the complainant appears to be strange and false.<br /> <br /> 8. When we gone through the documents produced by the OP especially the photographs, they speaks to the fact that the complainant marriage party entered the said hall at 3.55 p.m. and varapooja was held at 3.59 p.m. up to 4.12 p.m. Those photographs are not disputed by the complainant. Hence for so this simple reason we find the defence set out by the OP that they did handover the said marriage hall at 3.30 p.m. to the complainant and his party appears to be true. The other photographs which pertains to 7 p.m. onwards speaks to the full decoration of the hall with flowers and furniture, stage is decorated. All these things cannot be done within a few minutes. If the version of the complainant is believed that for the first time got keys at 7 p.m. from OP officials on that day, then all these things will not happen in a miracle way within few minutes. There is an exchange of ring at 7.42 p.m., 7.43 p.m. onwards reception is started, dignitaries have wished the complainant. All this is disclosed under the said photographs. Under the circumstances we find the other allegations of the complainant appears to be far from truth.<br /> <br /> 9. If the version of the complainant is to be believed that the said hall was not neat and clean, there is a sanitary blockage, water supply was not there, all these celebrations would not have happened. Definitely he would have arranged the photographer or video graph, they would have taken the photos of the said unhygienic condition of the hall. But no such photographs or evidence is produced. On the other hand compaq disc produced by the OP speaks to the existing material facts including that of neat and clean of hall, decoration, reception, celebration of the marriage as per the schedule. <br /> <br /> 10. The other document produced by the OP with regard to payment of electricity and water charges towards the consumption of the same dated 10.02.2008 and 11.02.2008 also supports the defence of the OP. Of course complainant along with complaint filed some of the statements alleged to have been given by the person in-charge of the said hall that there is some problem with the sanitary, release of the water, etc. Unfortunately again complainant has not filed the affidavit of the said persons, who alleged to have given such kind of statements in his favour including that of flower decorator and one Basavaraju. Under such circumstances we find no such importance can be given to the so called letters. Non-examination of the said witnesses is fatal to the complainant’s case.<br /> <br /> 11. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence produced by both the litigating parties, OP has produced some appreciation letters written by the persons who availed the said Rajatha Bhavana for the celebration of the marriages. Apart from that the photographs they speak themselves regarding the truth. It is less said the better with regard to the allegations of the complainant. If really such problem is there with the hall and delay in handing over the keys such beautiful photographs or all happy movements would not have been captured. We do not find force in the allegations of the complainant. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for compensation as prayed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 01st day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />