Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/410/2017

Krishan Pal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit S. Dhiman Adv.

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	410 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	16.05.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	06.11.2017

 

 

 

 

Krishan Pal Sharma aged 69 years, son of Sh.Sadhu Ram, Resident of H.No.2314, Mariwala, Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.  

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sector 17, Chandigarh

2]  The Officer on Special Duty (Booking Cell), Municipal Corporation, Sector 7, Chandigarh.

3]  Sampark Center, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

4]  Supervisor, Community Centre, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra.

                      ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :    

Sh.Ranjit S. Dhiman, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Ashish Rawal, Adv. for OPs No.1, 2 & 4

Sh.Ashok Gautam, Govt. Pleader for OP No.3

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant on 25.2.2017 booked Hall and Lawn at Community Centre, MHC Duplex, Manimajra, through Opposite Party No.3, for the period from 4.3.2017 9:00 AM to 5.3.2017 8:59 AM, which belongs to Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 and under the supervision of OP No.4 for performing of function of ‘Naam Karan’ of a new born baby boy.  The complainant paid Rs.6250/- to Opposite Parties against the said booking and they also issued a letter dated 25.2.2017 (Annexure C-1 & C-2).  It is averred that as per the booking, the complainant shifted the catering material, ration, vegetables and other concerned materials etc. at the Community Centre, Manimajra, Chandigarh on 3.3.2017 and the catering workers started preparing foods and installing the tent etc. in the morning of 4.3.2017.  It is alleged that the OPs also booked the said Community Centre, for the said date 4.3.2017 in the name of Sh.S.P.Vasudeva, r/o H.No.5795, whose catering worker came at the spot and thrown out all the material of the complainant from the hall as well as from the kitchen saying that the Community Centre is booked in his name and due to this act of OPs, the complainant had to face humiliation in front of his guests and other relatives.  It is submitted that the complainant was compelled to make the extra arrangement for sitting and cooking by arranging and installing an additional tent in the open area i.e. in the lawn and that caused loss to the complainant for that additional arrangement to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh including tent etc. The complainant also tried to contact the higher officials of OP Corporation but all in vain. It is further submitted that the complainant incurred an amount for Rs.65000/- for extra arrangement for which extra bill was raised by the caterer (Ann.C-4). It is stated that after the function was over, the complainant sent letter to OPs for paying damages as well as for the refund of the amount taken for booking of the Community Centre (Annexure C-3), due to their deficient act, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs NO.1, 2 & 4 (hereinafter referred to as OP Corporation) have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied that Community Centre of Manimajra, Modern Housing Complex (MHC), Chandigarh was booked in favour of two persons for the same date and period.  It is submitted that there are two Community Centres in Manimajra, one is in Modern Housing Complex (MHC), booked in the name of complainant, and the other is in Pocket No.7, NAC Manimajra (near Shivalik Garden and booked as Community Centre, NMC Manimajra, Chandigarh, in favour of Sh.S.P.Vasudeva, which fact is clearly evident from receipt Ann.C-1 & C-6.  It is also submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts.  It is further submitted that in fact, both complainant as well as said S.P.Vasudeva performed their respective ceremonies at the Community Centre, Manimajra, Chandigarh.  It is denied that the complainant ever approached the officials of answering Opposite Party with any grouse, as alleged.  It is stated that no material evidence whatsoever has been placed on record by the complainant in support of averments made in the complaint. Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The Opposite Party NO.3 has also filed reply stating that as per the electronic data maintained in its office, the Community Centre situated at Manimajra were booked for 4.3.2017 i.e. One Community Centre, situated at Modern Housing Complex (MHC) Duplex, Chandigarh booked in the name of Sh.S.P.Vasudeva and other one situated at NMC, Manimajra, Chandigarh was booked in the name of complainant Sh.Krishan Pal Sharma. It is denied that one community centre was booked in the name of two persons, as alleged by the complainant.  Denying other allegations for want of knowledge and pleading no deficiency in service, Opposite Party NO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Certainly the allegation of the complainant that the Opposite Party NO.3 booked one community centre situated at Manimajra, Chandigarh in the name of two different persons, goes wrong in view of the two permission letters placed on record by the complainant himself as Ann.C-1 i.e. Permission letter is in his name and Ann.C-6 i.e. another permission letter which has been issued in the name of Sh.S.P.Vasudeva.  Both these documents reveals that the different community centres situated at Manimajra, Chandigarh were allotted to two different persons for the respective functions to be held on 4.3.2017 09:00:00 to 05.3.2017 08:59:00 and were booked on 25.2.2017 & 4.1.2017 respectively. 

 

7]       It is the admission of OP Corporation that both the persons i.e. complainant as well as said Sh.Vasudeva performed their respective ceremonies at the Community Centre, Manimajra, Chandigarh.  This admission of answering OPs corroborates the allegation of the complainant made in the present complaint that he was ousted forcibly from the the premises which was booked in his name and was compelled to held his function in the open lawn of Community Cenrtre under constrained circumstances.  It is submitted in the arguments by the counsel for the complainant that he tried to contact the authorities concerned to register his grievance, but none was available to redress his grievance at that juncture.  This allegation of the complainant has been denied by the OP Corporation as correct, which in our opinion is not right on their part.  We can well presume that if anybody is ousted from his allotted premises forcibly and unlawfully, then he/she will definitely try to approach the authorities concerned in order to get his/her grievance resolved.  The OP Corporation badly failed to prove that in the disputed community centre, any of their employee was present/deputed to look after the said government premises to facilitate the smooth functioning of the ceremony to be held against the booking and also to look into such malpractices.

 

8]       The OP Corporation has also not brought forward any record showing that any person/employee was appointed for the upkeep of the said community centre, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh or any official was appointed/deputed to check the legitimate use of said public premises.  Had there been any of employees of OP Corporation deputed to look after/guard the said community centre, then definitely he would have been approached by the complainant.

   

9]       It is apt to mention that the complainant had to bear the cost of the omission committed by the Municipal Authorities i.e. OP Corporation, as the Hall, which was booked in the complainant’s name was forcibly taken in possession by Sh.S.P.Vasudeva), who was not even the allottee of that Community Centre.  This omission on the part of the OP Corporation is deplorable as they did not take into consideration that how a non-allottee would enter forcibly in the Community Centre to conduct his function. 

10]      In our considered opinion, it is the duty of the OP Corporation to arrange for the security of the premises in order to avoid any illegal or illegitimate use of the community centre in question.  It is thus proved beyond any doubt that the OP Corporation has failed to perform their duty in right manner and also failed to provide the agreed services, which affected the complainant badly not only in monetary terms but was also forced to face humiliation and harassment for no fault on his part. Undoubtedly, the complainant would have suffered great humiliation in the presence of his relatives (gathered to attend the function), when he was deprived of his rightful claim and due to the absence of any responsible person of the authorities concerned was left in lurch.

 

11]      During the course of arguments, we have been apprised that no register or record has been maintained by OP Corporation, where it can authoritatively be checked that both the parties (complainant and Sh.S.P.Vasudeva) held function at the same Community Centre.  This means that no record is maintained in the said Community Centre, which tantamounts to a serious Administrative lapse on the part of the authorities concerned i.e. OP Corporation.   

12]      The highhandedness of the department concerned can be assessed from the fact that M.C. authorities have yet not decided the fate of the written complaints filed by the complainant on 14.3.2017 and 23.3.2017 respectively.  The reasons for not taking any action on the complaints of the complainant is best known to the OP Corporation, but it certainly reflects malafide on its part.  It is observed that instead of accepting their guilt/deficiency in service, the OP Corporation not only tried to circumvent the issue, but also made an attempt to wriggle out from the responsibility stating that they duly allowed the complainant and his authorised person to use the kitchen and also to place his material on the date prior to the date of booking i.e. March 3, 2017 and also claimed that the complainant did not complained to any official of the OP Corporation against the injustice done to him. 

  

13]      In our opinion, the complainant needs to be compensated by the OP Corporation for the harassment suffered by him and for the humiliation encountered by him solely due to its gross deficient services.

 

14]      Though the complainant has placed on record the bill of Rs.65,000/- claimed to have been spent on the extra arrangement made by him, but has not proved cogently that he duly paid that much of amount against receipt.  In the absence of such proof/receipt, such relief cannot be granted to the complainant, but as has already been discussed that the complainant suffered humiliation and harassment due to the fault of OP Corporation, so he is certainly entitled for good amount of compensation.

15]     In view of the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OP Corporation has been proved.  Therefore, the complaint is allowed against OP Corporation (OPs No.1, 2 & 4) with following directions:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the humiliation & harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4;

 

2. To pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by OP Corporation within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/-, apart from the above awarded relief.

 

16]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party NO.3 stands dismissed as no deficiency in service is attributed towards it.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6^th November, 2017               

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER