DOF.17.05.2011

DOO.03.03.2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 3^rd  day of  March  2012

C.C.No.155 /2011

P.Damodaran,

Nandini House,

P.o.Thikkoti 673 529.                           Complainant

Secretary,

Thalassery  Municipal Office,

Thalassery.                                          Opposite party

(Rep. by Adv.K.Ajith Kumar)   

          O R D E R

Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of  `3900 towards cost and `7500 as compensation for mental agony.

The  brief facts of the complainant’s case is that on 21.6.2010 complainant booked the  town hall as well as dining hall provided by the opposite party for the marriage function of his daughter which was scheduled to be held on 9.9.10. Complainant paid `10,500 towards advance booking charge. At the time of booking the hall the process of furnishing the hall was going on. The staff of the opposite party assured the complaint that the entire arrangements would be made before the marriage date. But after collecting the balance amount of `12,303 on 4.9.2010 complainant was informed that in view of the ensuing Municipal election it is not possible to arrange the dining hall and complainant has to make arrangements for dining table, chairs and kitchen for his purpose. Since the complainant paid huge amount towards rent it is the duty of the opposite party to provide dining tables and chairs and arrange at least a shed for cooking in the dining hall. The complainant, having been denied these basic faculties at the eleventh hours, was compelled to run from pillar to post with heavy tension for hiring them. This amounts gross deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence on 812.10 complainant issued a notice to opposite party requesting refund an amount of  `3900 which was spent by the complainant for hiring chairs, tables and for arranging cooking shed. Opposite party sent a reply refusing to refund the amount. Complainant alleges that by collecting huge amount as rent opposite party has the duty to provide basic facilities in the dining hall as well as kitchen for the marriage function. Hence complainant submits that there is gross deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and he claims a compensation of `3900 the amount incurred for hiring table and chairs for dining hall and `7500 for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

          On getting the complaint notice issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed version. Opposite party admitted that complainant booked the town hall as well as dining hall for the purpose  of conducting the marriage of his daughter  and an amount of  `22803 was received by opposite party. Opposite party submits that before booking the town hall complainant himself inspected the hall and after satisfying the existing facility available there .The complaint paid the advance amount. Opposite party further contended that as per the decision of the Municipal council held on 22.4.2010, the rent for the town hall for a day for marriage party was fixed `20,000 and if the party wants to use the dining hall as well as kitchen along with the town hall they should remit `25,000 for a day. Apart from this the party shall pay `2000 for cleaning 10.3% service tax and the electricity charges. There after Municipal steering committee meeting held on 3.5.2010 revised the rent as  such the opposite party was charged only `17500 for town hall, `500 as rent for dinning hall, `1000 generator charge, `2000 as cleaning charge along with 10.3% service charge of  `1803. From the above calculation the opposite party submits that they have collected only the statutory amount fixed by the Municipal council. Since the opposite party was not collected any amount from the complainant for the use of chairs, tables and other items used in the dining hall and kitchen, they are not liable to refund that amount as claimed in the notice. If any inconvenience was caused to the complainant it was only due to his own omission, negligence or misunderstanding. The opposite party is not liable for any such los or damage. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in this matter and opposite party prays that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

    opposite party in providing town hall and dining hall to the

    complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

3. Relief and cost.

          The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1,DW1 and  Ext.A1 to A7 on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party.

Issue No. 1

          The complainant adduced evidence by means of chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings. Ext.A1 goes to show that he had booked the municipal town hall as well as the dining hall by paying an advance amount of `10500 on 21.6.2010.the marriage function is scheduled to be conducted on 9.9.2010. It is quite clear form the averments of both parties that the dining hall was under renovation at the time when the complainant booked the same. Admittedly there was no dining table, chairs, and kitchen attached with the dining hall. Complainant submits that one Mr.Pradeep who is in charge of the renovation work was told him that the dining table and chairs will be arranged before the marriage date. On the contrary opposite party adduced evidence to show that since dining tables chairs and kitchen facility was not arranged as per the decision of the Municipal steering committee dated 3.5.2010 including the rent for the generator, they have collected only 1500 as rent for the dining hall. But those figures were not separately shown in Ext.A1 and A2 receipts. Right or wrong the complainat believed that the basic facilities like tables and chairs and at last a shed for cooking purpose would be provided by the opposite party. But the complainant came to know about these deficiencies only after  remitting the balance rent amount of `12303 on 4.9.2010 and compelled to run  from pillar to post with  a heavy tension and panic for hiring them outside. Through Ext.A6 notice complainant informed about the deficiency of these basic facilities for conducting the marriage function and demanded for return of an amount of `3900 which was spent by the complainant for hiring the article. To the said notice opposite party sent a formal reply that the said request cannot be considered. But here it is pertinent to note that there is a specific stipulation in Ext.B2 decision taken by the Municipal steering committee on 3.5.2010 which reads in column No.6 that “Town hall _p¡v sN¿p-¶-hÀ¡v  e`.-y-amb tkh-\-§Ä kT-_-Ôn¨pw I£n-IÄ  tFÀs¸Sp-t¯­ Imc-y-§Ä kw_-Ôn-¨pT  Ipdn¸v \ÂIp-¶-Xn-\pT XpI apgp-h-\mbn AS¨v Ign-ªm lmÄ A\p-h-Zn-¨p-sIm­pff D¯-chv \S-]-Sn-IÄ \ÂIp-¶-Xn-\p-T-Xo-cp-am-\n-¨p.”

But no where in the reply notice or in the pleadings the opposite party contended that they have issued such a statement regarding the available accommodation in the dining hall. The very silence on the part of opposite party leads to the conclusion that there was no prior intimation regarding the available accommodation provided by the opposite party at the time of booking the town hall by the complainant. This is a serious deficiency on the part of opposite party when laymen are booking town hall as well as dining hall for the marriage party they may reasonably expect the basic facilities like tables, chairs and kitchen will be attached with the dining hall. Since there were no such facilities the decisionNo.6 in Ext.B2 was taken by the steering committee. Even though from the very beginning itself complainant alleges that he was not informed about the lack of this basic facilities and the fact that the opposite party had not denied the same in the version or evidence it is quite clear that the opposite party had not informed about the available facility in the town hall as well as dining hall at the time of booking the same by the complainant. It is a violation of the decision taken by the Municipal steering committee on 3.5.2010.If the opposite party issued such a written statement regarding the sort of accommodation rendered by them there will not be any further complaint. The contention of the opposite party that the inconvenience if any, occurred to the complainant was only due to his own omission, negligence, misunderstanding, is not sustainable. The mental agony suffered by the complainant was only due to lack of proper written intimation regarding the available accommodation provided by the opposite party in the town hall as well as dining hall. The above omission on definitely caused deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and opposite arty is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by him and the issue is answered accordingly.

Issue Nos. 2 and 3

          Complainant alleges that due to the non availability of tables and chairs in the dining hall and the kitchen facility he had suffered much mental pain and agony for arranging them at the 11^th hour. It is already found that there was gross negligence on the art of opposite party in informing the complainant about the available accommodation provided by them in the dining hall as well as the town hall. If the complainant had informed about the same at the 1^st instance when complainant paid advance booking charge there is nothing wrong to expect that the arrangements would be made in the dining hall for conducting the marriage function of his daughter. Since the complainant came to know about non availability of the facility at the dining hall only at a later stage he did suffer much mental agony and tension for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. However, complainant is not entitled to get refund the amount spent for hiring dining tables and chairs and for arranging kitchen facility since the opposite party has not collected any charge for providing such facility. Apart from the oral evidence of the complainant no other evidence are available to show that he had suffered any actual loss due to the defective service rendered by the opposite party. Hence as a punitive method the opposite party is liable to pay an amount of  `3000 as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the omission on the part of opposite party in informing  about the available accommodation at the right time as per the spirit of the decision taken by the Municipal steering committee on 3.5.2010.Complainat who came before the Forum with a genuine and reasonable  demand is entitled to get `1000 as cost of the proceedings and the issues are answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum `3,000 (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and `1000(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

        Sd/-                               Sd/-

            President                          Member         

                                             APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 to A3 Receipt issued by OP

A4.Invitation card of complainant’s daughter

A5.Bill issued by Soundarya Light & Sound dt.9.9.10.

A6.Copy of the letter sent to OP

A7. Letter dt. 14.1.11 sent by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1.Copy of the council resolution dt.22.4.10

B2. Copy of the steering committee resolution dt.3.5.10.

B3. Copy of the details regarding town hall booking from 9.5.10 to

       29.6.11.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party:

DW1.K.Suresh Babu

/forwarded by order/

                                                                    Senior Superintendent