DOF.01.03.2011

DOO.12.09 .2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan     :  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari  :  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy                :  Member

Dated this, the  12^th  day of September     2011

CC.74/2011

C.K.P.Alavi,

‘Safwa”

Near Civil Court,

Thalassery.                                                     Complainant

 (Rep. by Adv. N.Vinod Kumar)

Secretary,

Thalassery Municipality,

Municipal Office,

P.O.Thalassery.

      (Rep. by Adv.K.Ajith Kumar)

                           Opposite parties   

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay  `10,000  for the expenditure and to pay `50,000 towards compensation with cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant booked the Thalassery Municipal Town hall for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of his daughter Abida Beevi on 19.9.2010. The complainant booked the town hall, dining hall and other allied facilities since the opposite party made believe the complainant that the town hall has the following facilities.

1.     Town hall has the seating capacity of 1060 with chairs

2.     Dining hall has the seating capacity of 400 with chairs and dining tables.

3.     Town hall has kitchen and other cooking facilities and water facility.

4.     Town hall has well furnished stage with curtains with lights and fans and also reception area.

5.     It has parking yard capable of parking 1000 cars

6.     There is generator in case of failure of power supply.

The opposite party made advertisements to that affect in prominent news papers and published newsletters, books etc. wherein it is stated that the above facilities are available in the Municipal town hall. The opposite party made believe that the complainant can use these facilities for the marriage function on payment of `22,803. Believing that the above facilities would be available the complainant has paid `10,000 on 12.5.2010 and `12,803 on 19.9.2010. When the complainant arrives at the premises of Town hall in the morning at about 7 a.m he was shocked to see that sufficient parking space is not provided and most of the parking area is dumped with remnants of building materials and other waste materials. When he entered in to the town hall he could notice that the stage was not furnished with curtains and no chairs and tables were provided in the dining hall, no kitchen or room is provided for cooking food for the guests, no facility like gas connection or fire-hearth, no generator is seen provided in case of power failure etc. Moreover the dining hall is incapable of accommodating more than 100 people at a time for lunch. When the complainant contacted the opposite party, he expressed his inability to provide the promised facilities. He was informed that it was expected that the work of the Town hall would M] completed before 19.9.2010. The town hall would not have been booked if he was made known that those facilities were not available. He was compelled to hire chairs, tables, tarpaulin, wash basin, generator and also the materials for a temporary kitchen. More over, complainant had to engage mazdoors for loading and unloading the materials to the town hall and also to clean the parking yard to park vehicles. The complainant had to arrange all these facilities before the arrival of the marriage party.  The information received from the opposite party regarding the available facilities was misleading one and the same is clearly revealed from the reply received according to Right to Information act. The opposite party has received excess amount from the complainant towards rent.  The rent for marriage function was `18000 whereas opposite party received `22,803 from the complainant. Due to the non availability of promised facilities complainant had to incur an additional expenditure of `40,000 towards hire charge and Mazdoor wages. Complainant is entitled for compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

In pursuance of the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version in the form of counter. The contention taken by the opposite party in brief is as follows: The complainant was availed the Town hall at Thalassery for the  marriage of his daughter and an amount of `22,803 was received by the opposite party. At the time of booking itself the details regarding the present position of the newly constructed building was explained to the complainant. Moreover, before booking the Town hall the complainant personally went to the hall and the advance paid after satisfying the existing facility. Complainant is residing only at a distance of 1 km from the Town hall. So many functions including marriages were already conducted in the Town hall. This opposite party never advertised exaggerated news. As per the decisions of council of Municipality taken on 22.4.2010 the rent for the Town hall for a day fixed as `20,000 for marriage functions. Moreover, if the party wants to use the dining and kitchen along with   Town hall they would remit `25,000 for a day for marriage function. Apart from this the party should pay `2000 for cleaning, 10.3% service Tax and also pay the electricity charge used for a day. Subsequently as per the decision of Municipal Steering Committee dated 3.5.2010 the rent of the town hall was revised. On the basis of this decision, the respondent was charged an amount of `17,500 for Town Hall rent for a day for the marriage. along with this amount party should pay `1,000 as generator charge since there is no electricity connection during those days. The rent for the dining hall was charged from the complainant was an amount of `500 only. Including service tax `1,803 complainant paid only `22,803. There is no sitting facility in the dining hall and that is why the rent for the dining hall was fixed as `500 only. This opposite party never offered parking place of `1000 numbers of vehicles. It is a well known fact that parking facilities of town hall will come only about 100 vehicles and so also seating capacity of   Town hall is a fixed one which cannot be changed at all. Opposite party never offered any sitting facility in the dining hall and kitchen attached to the town hall. There is no misrepresentation. Opposite party received only the statutory charges. Hence there is no deficiency in service. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

                    On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Ext. A1 to A8 and B1 and B2.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

Admittedly complainant booked the Town hall for the purpose of the celebrating the marriage of his daughter on 19.9.2010. The case of the complainant is that the assured facilities were not available in the Town hall and  thereby he has incurred a heavy expense so as to arrange those facilities and suffered much mental sufferings. Opposite party on the other hand contended that complainant personally went to the hall and the advance amount paid after satisfying the existing facility. Moreover, complainant residing very near to Town hall. It is a newly constructed building and all the details regarding availability of facilities had been explained to him at the time of booking the hall itself.

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit  in tune with the pleadings. Ext.A1 receipt proves that he has paid `10,000 as Town hall booking Advance, on 12.5.2010. Ext.A2 dt. 19.9.10 is the receipt for `12803 paid for the balance amount of booking of Town hall.Exts.A1 and A2 proves that complainant has paid the amount of `22,803towards the rent of Town hall. Complainant’s main allegation is that opposite party made believe him that the town hall has the following facilities.

1. Town hall has the seating capacity of 1060 with chairs
2. Dining hall has the seating capacity of 400 with chairs and dining tables.
3. Town hall has kitchen and other cooking facilities and water facility.
4. Town hall has well furnished stage with curtains with lights and fans and also reception area.
5. It has parking yard capable of parking 1000 cars
6. There is generator in case of failure of power supply.

Complainant alleges that opposite party has given advertisement in many news papers that those facilities are available in town hall. He also alleges that the press notes and the books published by Municipality also published that the above given facilities are available in the town hall. He also authoritatively depending upon the reply he received by him from the public information officer as per Right to Information Act so as to establish case Ext. A5 the text of budget of Thalassery Municipality and Ext.A6 the publication of achievements of development of Five years are the books mentioned by the complainant. Complainant received Ext.A5 and A6 only after marriage. In cross examination PW1/Complainant deposed that “ Ext.A5 DT Ext.A6 DT Ie-ym-WT Ign-ª-X-n-\p-ti-j-amWv F\n¡v In«n-bXv”          Since these books are received by the complainant after marriage both Ext.A5 and A6 has not,  in any way, influenced complainant to have any impression upon Town hall. Moreover those documents cannot be considered as advertisement. The articles about town hall and pictures do not make clear what all facilities are readily available during the relevant period. The allotment of amount and expenditure of different items do not make assure that those items of facilities are readily available to make use of .Any way if an advertisement is given  stating such and such facilities are available things are different. Opposite party is liable make available those items of facilities which are offered by advertisement. Complainant pleaded that advertisement were given in so many news papers that the above said facilities are available in Town hall. But such news papers are not seen produced. If any one of those news papers has produced the case of the complainant could have been very well established. Why complainant has not produced those news papers are not understandable. If it is really advertised in newspapers that  is an easily available document. Non production of those documents amounts to a gross negligence on the part of complainant in substantiating the pleadings of the complaint. Even in affidavit evidence he has not mentioned at least the names of those papers. Complainant is a retired teacher. He will have better understanding with the newspapers details. Item No.1 and 3 of Ext.A4 is important to be noted. Item No.1 says that “ Su¬ lmfse ssU\n§v lmfn Dt±-iT 400 t]À¡v Hcp-an-¨n-cp¶p `£-WT Ign-¡m-\p-ff  kuI-c-y-ap­v” Item No. 3 says that ssU\n§v lmfn `£-WT Ign-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-th­n Itk-c-I-fpT tai-I-fpT kÖo-I-cn-¨n-«nÔ.  The specific case of the opposite party is that the opposite party or any of his subordinates neither misrepresented nor given any unnecessary promise to the customers regarding the facility of dining hall and kitchen since the inauguration of the town hall was in hurry after the completion of its work. Opposite party admitted in version itself that there was no sitting facility in the dining hall at the time of giving the same for rent. Hence there is no need to prove that   there was no sitting arrangements in the dining hall. It is an admitted fact. Ext.A4 has no special role in proving the absence of such facility. Complainant has not adduced evidence to show that there was such commitment on the part of opposite party to provide such facility of sitting arrangement. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that there was such commitment. It can be seen that the rent for the dining hall is only 500. Suppose the Dining hall furnished with sitting arrangements with 400 people or else for 200 people one cannot in the usual course, expect such a Hall, in the year 2010, in a Municipality like Thlaassery to avail for a rent of `500. In a case where there is no clear evidence we cannot reject the ground reality of our social life blatantly while analyzing the existing state of affairs with available materials. A modern dining hall with sitting facility of 400 people will not be available anywhere in any municipality for a rent of `500. The specific case of the opposite party is that the non availability of the sitting facility is the reason why rate for the dining hall was fixed `500 only. Now the burden of proof is with the complainant to prove his case that there been promise on the part of opposite party to provide the Dining hall with sitting facility for a rent of `500. Complainant could have examined at least some person, who had similar experience earlier. Mere pleading is not sufficient but it should be supported by good evidence without which the case cannot be proved.

          Complainant has further case that opposite party has received excess amount towards rent. Opposite party has specific case that Municipality is having a fixed rate for all the particular facility and the same was decided and charged on the strength of the decision of steering committee and Municipal council. Ext.B1 is decision of Municipal Council and B2 is the decision of steering committee. Ext.B1 and B2 has not been challenged by the complainant. He has asked a question to DW1; whether it is correct to say that the rent is `10,000 for using Dining Hall alone? Whatever may be the answer it has no practical relevancy as far as the case in hand concerned why because opposite party received only `500 for dining hall rent. The total rent for Town hall, Dining hall and Generator charge i.e. `17500 + `500 + `1000  respectively = `19000 is only received by opposite party as per the decision of the Municipal steering committee. Municipal steering committee on 3.5.2010 has decided as No.1 as follows:

 “Xmsg ]d-bp¶ Xocp-am-\-§Ä FSp¯p

(1)     ssU\n§v lmfn Itk-c-I-fpT tai-bpT hm§p-¶-Xp-hsc P\-td-äÀ

     hmSI DÄs¸sS (Uo-k sNehv ]pd-sa) 1500 cq] am{XT A[n-I-ambn

     CuSm-¡n-s¡m­v lmÄ A\p-h-Zn-¡p-¶-Xn\p Xocp-am-\n-¨p. (A-Xm-bXv

     Ie-ymW Bh-i-y-¯n\p Su¬lm-fpT `£-W-lm-fpT A\p-h-Zn-¡p-¶-

     Xn\p 21,000 cq] \nÝ-bn-¨-Xn 19,000 CuSm-¡n-s¡m­v A\p-h-Zn-¡m-hp-

     ¶-Xm-Wv).

It is therefore proved that the rent received by the Municipality is based on the decision of the statutory body legally bound to follow. The other charges received by the opposite party are `2000 for cleaning charge and `1,803 as service charge. Ext.B1 reveals that the Municipal council has decided to charge these amounts from the consumers. When the Municipal council and its committees take a decision that is legally bound to be is followed.

          It is wonderful to learn that the complainant came to the venue of the marriage only on the morning of the date of marriage. If it is a conference of an organization one can understand but in a case of marriage celebration in ordinary course one should assure before hand that the place of marriage is suitable, proper and ready for use. That is quite common to all categories of community in a marriage function and the place of occurrence is generally decided long before the function that too will be announced on the day of engagement itself. That means it will come to notice of friends and relatives   much earlier to the function. As a matter of fact the facilities available in the Municipal Town Hal would be a talk of the town in the ordinary course. Whatever, it may be the house of the complainant is only 2 ½ KM away from Town Hall. That means complainant’s house is within the Municipality. All these facts and the existing circumstances naturally provide sufficient opportunity for complainant to understand the actual position of Town Hall. There is no meaning in saying that he was totally unaware of the facilities available therein before the date of marriage. Complainant booked Town hall on 12.5.2010. The marriage function held on 19.9.2010 i.e. four months after the booking. If suitability of the venue and the facilities available therein, are not ascertained before the day of marriage that is a matter of gross fault, which cannot be expected from an educated man like the complainant. A man of ordinary prudence cannot believe that the relatives of the bride visited venue of the marriage celebration only on the early morning of the day of marriage even if it is only 2 ½ KM away from the residence of the bride. Hence the facts and circumstances do not permit to hold that the allegations of complainant that he came to know the facilities and condition of Town Hall only on the particular day of marriage.

          In the light of the above discussions we hold that there is no substance in the allegations of the complainant. Complainant failed to prove his case by producing cogent and clear evidence and thereby he  could not establish deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we find issue Nos. 1 to 3 against complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                     Sd/-                       Sd/-                     Sd/-

                        President                  Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1 & A2. Receipt dt.12.5.10 & 9.9.10 issued by OP

A3.  Copy of application dt.8.12.10 filed under RIA

A4.  Reply dt.5.1.11 issued by OP

A5.  Budget of Thalassery Municipality.

A6.  Book named Xe-tÈcn \K-c-k` _UvPäv 2010-þ11

A7.  Book named hnI-k-\-ap-t¶-ä-¯nsâ 5 hÀj-§Ä.

A8.  Bills issued by KMS stereo Sound system

Exhibits for the opposite party:  

B1. Copy of the resolution of OP dt.22.4.10

B2. Copy of decision of steering committee dt.3.5.10

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party:

DW1.  E.K.Pradeepkumar

                  /forwarded by order/

          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.