IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2013
Present: Smt. G.Vasanthakumari,President
Sri. R.Vijayakumar ,Member.
Adv.Ravisusha, Member
CC.NO. 461/2006
SRI.A.KRISHNAN NAIR ,
SOBHA SADANAM, KADAKKAL P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
(BY ADV.SIJU KAMALASANAN,KOLLAM) - COMPLAINANT
V/S
1. THE PROPRIETOR ,
SREE SAILAM AUDITORIUM,
KADAKKAL.
2. PREMALATHA W/O SASIDHARAN,
PACHAYIL VEEDU, KANJIRA THUMOODU,
KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM
3. DR. AJITHA, D/O SASIDHARAN
PACHAYIL VEEDU, KANJIRA THUMOODU,
KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM
4. SANDEEP S/O SASIDHARAN
PACHAYIL VEEDU, KANJIRA THUMOODU,
KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
5. SAJITH S/O SASIDHARAN
PACHAYIL VEEDU, KANJIRA THUMOODU,
(2)
KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM
(Adv.BENOY BAL,KOLLAM) -OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
SRI. R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,MEMBER
This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation Rs. 4,54189 along with12% interest from 30/10/2005 till realization and for getting cost of proceedings.
Briefly stated facts of the complaint is that the complainant had booked Sree Sailam Auditorium owned by the 1st opposite party to conduct his only daughter Raji’s marriage for 30/10/05 after verifying the availability of the said Auditorium. The booking Manager accepted Rs.500/- towards advance and executed the agreement.
Surprizingly on 18/10/2005 the complainant caused to see wedding letter of one Jincy and Suresh on 30/10/05 at the same auditorium. On enquiry, the manager informed the complainant that it was happened due to clerical mistake and they persuade the other party to shift their marriage. Though the complainant waited for the whole day for a favourable reply the opposite party kept mum. The complainant sent a registered letter to them on 19/01/05 for clarification. But contrary to the expectation, the opposite party sent a legal notice and it was received by the complainant on 26/10/05 alleging false stories. Due to the negligence and mistake from the side of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered much mental agony hardslip and sufferings and monitory loss for making alternate arrangements. The complainant failed in his attempt to get another auditorium as the day was a secret day for Hindu marriages. The complainant was fored book Panchayath Stadium and had constructed temporary pandals and to spent much money to convert the marshy -stadium to accommodate the people. He was forced to spent money to hire vehicles for intimating the change of wedding and to transport people on the wedding day. Non availability of chairs, tables and kitchen utensils also
(3)
hampered the preparation due to the number of marriages on that day. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation for the financial loss and mental agony sustained by him due to the negligent attitude and deficiency in service from the opposite party.
The opposite party filed version as per section 13 1b @ of the Consumer Protection Act contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, it is baseless and ill motivated.
Sree sailam is a twin Auditorium with one main hall with Mandapam and 900 persons seating capacity and mini hall with Mandapam with 500 persons seating capacity. There are two kitchens also. The dining hall with 500 persons capacity can be devided in to two as and when required. Sufficent open space is there for erecting shamianas temparorily . There are all facilities to conduct two marriages at a time on a day. There are so many occasions when two marriages were solemnized in Sree Sailam complex on the same day. It is true that the complainant booked the auditorium for solemnizing the marriage of his daughter on 30/10/05 between 11.42 and 12.06 and the booking was for the specified time-Muhoortham. The allegation that the marriage fixed for the day after verifying with opposite party regarding the availability of the auditorium on 30/10/05 is false when the complainant came to Sree Sailam on 13/06/2005 for booking the auditorium, the Auditorium was already booked for the Muhoortham between 11 AM to 11.30 AM on 30/10/05 as early on 01/06/05 by Mr. Sreevilasan SM Bahavan, kariyam for the marriage of his relative. The manager has shown the counterfoil and the dairy and has convinced the complainant. But the complaint was deadly in need of Auditorium as he has already fixed the marriage of his daughter for the day. So the complainant enquired about the possibility of availiability of the auditorium at 11.30 am immediately after the marriage of the relative of Sreevilasan. So the manager in consultation with Mr. Sreevilasan has informed the availiability of the auditorium after 11.30 am and explained the additional facilities that could .be provided for conducting two marriages on a day. The complainant was satisfied by the additional facilities that could be provided and, booked the auditorium for the Muhoortham 11.30 to 12.06 on 30.10.2005 and contacted this opposite party
(4)
and requested for additional facilities including a ‘ Shamiyan’. Accoringly the opposite party has made all the necessary arrangements on 14.06.2005 itself with M/ s Sarada Hire Service and paid Rs. 1500/- as advance for materials booked. On 17.10.2005 the complainant once again came Sree Sailam to ensure and ascertain the arrangements made for the additional facilities.
The complainant had booked the auditorium as stated above with full knowledge regarding the prior booking. It was not a mistake but an arrangement made as requested by the complainant. Hence there was no necessity or chance for the manager to convey any such information regarding any persuation of the other party, as alleged, that too to a person who was the first to book the auditorium. The opposite party has replied with true facts to the notice dated 19.10.2005 and requested the complainant to co-operate to solemnize the marriage of complainants daughter at Sree Sailam Auditorium. But the complainant had unilaterally shifted the venue of his daughter’s marriage, without co-operating with the opposite party as agreed on 13.06.2005 and thereafter issued notices on 19-10-05 and on 14.11.2005 through his cousel demanding Rupees Five Lakhs towards compensation. The reply to the suit notice dated 14.01.2005 was returned to the sender as unclaimed, as the counsel of the complainant failed to receive the reply. The contrary allegations are false and hence denied by this opposite party.
There is no negligence or any deficiency in the service on the part of this opposite party. No mental agony, hardship, sufferings or any financial loss is caused to the complainant due to any act of this opposite party and the allegations made contrary to are denied.
The shifting of the venue is only an unnecessary, voluntary action deliberately done with malafied intention of illegal gain and to defame the opposite party.
The complainant has not suffered any loss due to any action of the opposite party. The amount claimed is exhorbitant and cannot be allowed.
(5)
The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party to institute the complaint as framed. The complaint is only an experimental litigation to drive illegal gain. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief granted as prayed for. The opposite party is not responsible for the cost of complainant. On the other hand the opposite party is dragged into unnecessary litigation. There is no deficiency is service from the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit. Pw1 to 3 examined. Exbts P1 to P11 marked.
From the side opposite parties Dw1 to 5 examined. Exbts D1 to D10 CW1 examined X1 to X3 and C1 marked.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties
2.Compensation and Cost.
Points 1 and 2
Admittedly the complainant had booked the Sree Sailam Auditorium owned by the opposite party on 13/06/2005 for conducting the complainant’s daughter’s marriage which is to be held on 30/10/05 paying advance amount RS. 500/-
The complainant’s case is that eventhough he had booked the Auditorium much earlier and after verifying the availability of Auditorium, the opposite party had given the Auditorium to another person for another marriage. Seeing a wedding letter of another marriage on the same day and approximately at the same time, the complainant immediately contacted with the opposite party. The manager informed the complainant that it was happened mistakenly and they persuade the other party to shift their marriage. But even after waiting for that day no favorable reply has been received. Hence the complainant sent
(6)
a Registered Notice to the opposite party on 19/10/05. Contrary to the expectation of the complainant he had got a legal notice from the opposite party. There is gross negligence from the part of opposite party.
The opposite party’s case is that Sree Sailam Auditorium is a twin Auditorium with one main hall and a minihall. As there are two Kalyana Mandapam, two kitchen, dining hall with seating capacity of 500 persons which can be devided as and when it needed and all other facilities to conduct two marriages the complainant had booked the auditorium. The complainant is well aware that there was an earlier booking by another person. As the complainant in dare need of an Auditorium and as he had fixed the date and time of marriage of his daughter he had enquired about the availability of the Auditorium immediately after the other marriage . The other party accepted his request. The complainant booked the auditorium for the marriage for the Muhurtham between 11.30 to 12.06 on 30.10.05 and opposite party made additional arrangements.
The main point to the ascertained in this case is that whether the complainant had booked the auditorium after enquiring the availability of the Auditorium and convinced that there is no other marriage. According to the complainant he had booked the auditorium after proper enquiry and after convincing that there is no other booking for the Auditorium on the same day.
According to the opposite party it was clearly informed to the complainant before the booking that there was a previous booking by one Mr. Sree valsan for marriage of his friend’s daughter and as the complainant was in dare need of Auditorium, the opposite party contacted to the other party and as per the request of the complainant they expressed the willingness to share the Auditorium after the 1st marriage the opposite party had made other facilities also .
Regarding this aspect we are of the openion that the contention raised by the opposite party is unbelievable. Even if its admitted that the complainant was in dare need of an Auditorium we cannot imagine that the complainant or
(7)
anyother, person will agree with the condition like this to conduct his only daughters marriage. Even a commen man knows that it isdifficult to conduct two marriages approximately at the same time on the same day . There is no sufficient interval to make arrangements of a wedding within the time span of 5 minutes. It is impossible to conduct two marriages on the same day approximately at the same time.
Another point of contention raised by the opposite party is that there are two auditorium in that Sree Sailam Auditorium, complex and there are sufficient facilities to conduct two marriages . There were previous occasions on which two marriages are solemnized in that Auditorium at the same time on the same day. To prove this contention he had cited some witnesses. Advocate commission also was appointed by the Forum as per the petition filed by the opposite party. The commissioner filed report and was examined as Cw1. The commissioner had noted in his report that the hall below the main hall is a minihall with ten chairs of 10 persons seating capacity and 30 other plastic chairs of single seating capacity. The commissioner has deposed in his oral testimony that there is a space in the backside where 30 chairs also can be inserted. It is also pointedout in Ext.C1 report that the width of the said mini Auditorium is only 6 meters on the western side and 3 meters only in the eastern side. It is also pointed out that there are a number of pillers on the Southern side of the mini hall. He had stated while in his oral testimony that “ Dinning hall
cmbnXncn¡p¶Xn³ Bhiyamb ASnkvYm\ kuIcyMMÄ Df-fXmbn ImWp¶nà Dining hall \v ]SnRmdp hi¯pf-f hmXen\v ASp¯mbn Dining hall \v sX¡v hS¡mbn Curtain sI«nXncn¡Wsa¶p ]dRp. Rm³ InÃ.
It is also stated in his report that it is impossible to conduct two marriages on the same day without sufficient time intervals in between two marriages.
DW2 to 5 were examined to prove that there is sufficient space and facilities in the Sree Sailam Auditorium to conduct two marriages at the same time.
(8)
Dw2 deposed that there is seating capacity of 500 persons in the minihall and above 2000 persons participated in the marriage of his daughter which was
solemnized in the minihall. As argued by the learned counsel we are also of the openion that he is an untrust worthy witness and his statements in respect of seating capacity of minihall shows favourism towards the opposite party .On a detailed verification of oral assertions of the witnesses from the side of opposite party we feel that the other witnesses from the defence side also were interested witnesses. The evidence adduced by DW2 to 5 is not sufficient to prove the defence version. The defence witnesses has not stated any where in their depositon that two marriages were solemnized in the Sree Sailam Auditorium at the same time or approximately at the same time on the same day.
If there are two Auditoriums as claimed by the opposite parties definitely there will be two separate booking forms and booking Registers. It is not specified in the booking Agreement whether the complainant booked the main Auditorium or the mini Auditorium. It is clear from the facts that the complainant had booked the main auditorium.
Eventhough he had stated in his version and the learned counsel vehemently argued that there was a previous booking on 30/10/05 the opposite
Parties failed to prove their contention. Mr. Sreevalsalan, the person who is competent to prove this contention who had made the alleged previous booking was not even cited as a witness. The opposite party had two different versions in this case. Hence we are of the openion that the opposite party had no consistency in his case.
Eventhough the complainant was cross- examined in detail nothing was brought out from the complainant to discard his evidence . Hence the evidence adduced by the complaint stands unimpeached. On the other hand the opposite parties miserably failed to prove their case. Related to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that as the opposite party had not challenged the bills etc:-for the expenses incurred by the complainant for making alternate arrangements and as not even a single
(9)
question was put to the witnessess regarding the bills produced by the complainant the evidence for expenses stands proved.
Regarding this aspect we are of the view that eventhough the complainant produced some quotations and bills the complainant also failed to prove the bills quotations etc:- Not even a single person who had issued bills etc:- was not cited as witness to substantiate the evidence adduced by him to prove the expenditure incurred by him.
We have perused the entire documents and evidence on record considered all the material facts of the case. We are of the considered openion that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to compensate financial loss and mental agony sustained by the complainant . The opposite party is further directed pay cost Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only ).
The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Dated this the 13th day of February , 2013.
G. VASANTHAKUMARI –Sd/-
R.VIJAYAKUMAR-Sd/-
Adv.RAVI SUSHA-Sd/-
Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
(10)
APPENDIX
Witness of the Complainant
PW1- Sri.Krishnan Nair
PW2-Sri.Jayachandran Pillai
PW3-Sri.Sukumaran Nair
Witness of the opposite party
Dw1- Sri.Sasidharan, Sri. Velayudhan
Dw2-Sri.Sasidharan
Dw3- Sri.Sudhakaran
Dw4- Sri.Sivarajan
DW5-Smt.P. Anandhavally
Documents of the complainant
Exbt.P1-Wedding time record
Exbt.P2 Series- Agreement Sheet
Exbt.P3-Wedding letter
Exbt.P4 Series- Letter dated 18/10/05
Exbt.P5-Advocate notice
Exbt.P6-Advocate Notice dated 14/11/05
Exbt.P7 Series –Receipts
Exbt.P8 Series-Taxi Trip Receipt
Exbt.P9Series-News paper Cuttings
Exbt.P10 Series-Advertisement Bill
Exbt.P11-Letter dated 20.03.07
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.D1-Letter dated 19.10.05
(11)
Exbt.D2-Letter
Exbt.D3-Agreement Sheet
Exbt.D4-Advocate Notice
Exbt.D5-Letter dated 1.12.05
Exbt.D6-Registered letter
Exbt.D7- Acknowledgement Card
Exbt.D8-Letter dated 22-06-09
Exbt.D9(d)Agreement Sheet
Exbt.D9(a)-Marriage documents
Exbt.D9(b)-Agreement sheet
Exbt.D9©-Photocopy of Agreement Sheet
Exbt.D9(e)-Certificate of marriage(Photocopy)
Exbt.D10-Diary Record
Court Witness
C1- Commissioner for local investigation
CW1- Commission Report
Court Exbits
Ext.X1-Invitation letter
Ext.X2- Certificate of Marriage
Ext.x3-Photograph
DRAFT COPY
CC.NO.461/2006
DATED 13/02/2013
