THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 131/2010
Friday , the 13th day of January, 2012
Petitioner : K. Ramachandran Nair,
Prabhalayam,
Kiliroor North P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Ajithan Nampoothiri)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Secretary,
Kottayam Municipality,
Municipal Office, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Dominic Sebastian)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner, filed on 18..5..2010, is as follows:
Petitioner booked Mamman Mappila Hall, owned by the opposite party, for conducting wedding of his son to be conducted on 7..3..2010 for Rs. 31,060/-. Petitioner’s son and proposed bride were employed in United States some relatives of the petitioner were residing abroad. Petitioner considering the convenience of the relatives and facility splendor of the Mamman Mappila Hall booked the hall, Petitioner had prepared for conducting the wedding function smoothly and pride. When the petitioner reached the hall a day before the wedding it was found that an exhibition was conducted by the North Eastern Handicraft and Handloom Development Corporation. Due to the act of the opposite party petitioner had to put forth another shed out side the hall. There was no space for parking of the vehicle. Most of the invitees were gone out of the hall without participating in the feast. Food for feast had to be prepared elsewhere. Many strangers had took part in the feast prepared. On enquiry petitioner understood that the fair which is to be conducted up
-2-
to 31..2..2010 was extended till 14..2..2010 . Due to the act committed by the opposite party petitioner was under gone much stress and mental pain and hardships. Petitioner had to compelled to meet additional expenses for preparing the food elsewhere. Petitioner claims Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted the booking of the Mamman Mappila hall for 7..12..2010. Before that North Eastern Handicrafts and Handloom Development Corporation booked the ground floor of Mamman Mappila Hall for the period from 31..1..2010 to 14..2..2010. Due to oversight the booking of the petitioner was not noticed by the municipality.When the question of dual booking came to the notice of the opposite party same was intimated to the petitioner and municipality offered to return the amount paid by the petitioner. But the petitioner inform the municipality that he will continue with booking excluding the ground floor. Municipality offered to put up panthal on both sides of the hall instead of ground floor. According to opposite party M/s. Kerala Decoration Works erected that shed for an amount of Rs. 10,375/-. Expense was meeted by opposite party. For enabling car parking facility opposite party sought permission of District hospital authority, which is situated opposite party to the hall. According to the opposite party no strangers from outside crept in to the feast. Municipality provided all alternative remedies and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-3-
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
Admittedly petitioner booked Mannan Mappila Hall for 7..2..2010. Ext. A3 receipt shows that petitioner paid Rs. 5,000/- as security deposit and Rs. 26,060/- as rent for the town hall and dining hall. Admittedly ground floor of the hall is in the
custody of the North Eastern Craft Fair, conducted from 31..1..2010 to 14..2..2010. Act of the opposite party in giving dual booking on the same day amounts to deficiency in service. Only question to be decided in this case is with regard to the quantum of damages which the petitioner is entitled for. As per the case of the petitioner he came to know the fact of dual booking of hall only on the day before wedding. In order to dis approve the case of petitioner opposite party examined one V.K. Anilkumar, Municipal Councilor as DW1. DW1 deposed that he intimated the fact of exhibition to the petitioner much earlier . Opposite party in order to prove their bonafides produced Ext. B3 letter which was alleged to be given by the opposite party to the District Hospital, Kottayam. From Ext. B3 it can be seen that opposite party on 4..2..2010 seek permission for parking of vehicle on 7..2..2010. In our view the deposition of DW1 is not believable because, there is no reply to Ext. A5 lawyers notice issued by the petitioner. Further more, from Ext. A9 document which is collected by the petitioner as per provisions of Information Act, it can be seen that no such application, as stated in the Ext. B3, is received to the Superintendent of
-4-
District Hospital.. So in our view Ext. A3 is a cooked up document prepared for the purpose of this case. Even if such a letter as Ext. B3 was given to the Superintendent of the District Hospital. Opposite party can very well produce the despatch register or else any other records to prove genuiness of submission of such an application. In the lack of corroborative evidence Ext. B3 is not believable In our view conducting a marriage ceremony and reception in a building in which there is an exhibition being conducted is a Herculean task . Probably strangers would crept in to the reception and feast defanitly the ceremony will be in ugliness.
As per constitution sovereignty west in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented . Public authorities committing deficiency in service is accountable for their mis behaviour before the authorities. Committing act of deficiency. Creating and producing false document like Ext. B3 before a quasy judicial body is un pardonable. Public authorities are personally liable for the same. Due to the passage of time and change in socio economic out look an authority empowered to function under a statute, while exercising power, discharge public duty has to act and sub serve general welfare and common good. In our view opposite party is liable for the act of deficiency and is liable to be compensated. The word compensation is of very vide connotation in legal sense. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extent to physical, mental or immossional suffering, insult or injury . In our view being a father of a groom petitioner has so many expectation and colourful imagination regarding wedding of his son. So, the mis-hap of the wedding ceremonial function and the reception of the son of the petitioner definitely caused much mental pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
-5-
When a consumer seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power payment of damages from fund of municipality is not allowable. When fora direct payment of damages against the municipality the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with the law. So, department concerned shall recover the same from those who are found responsible. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result following order is passed. (a) Opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings (b) Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner (c) After payment of the amount from the public fund opposite party shall conduct an internal enquiry immediately and to recover the cost and compensation from those employees who are found responsible for such un pardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately if there are more than one functionaries. A copy of the order is to be sent to be secretary to the local self government to conduct an enquiry with regard to production of Ext. B3 document. Appropriate legal action should be taken against the person who is found responsible for making false document, in accordance with law. Order is to be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount from date of filing of the petition till realization.
-6-
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of January, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Receipt Dtd: 10..12..2009
Ext. A2: Receipt for Rs. 5,000/- Dtd: 11..12..2009
Ext. A3: Receipt for Rs. 26060/- Dtd: 17..12..2009
Ext. A4: Notice to Craft Fair
Ext. A5: Lawyers notice Dtd: 23..3..2010
Ext. A6: Postal receipt
Ext. A7: Postal Receipt
Ext. A8: Invitation card
Ext. A9: Letter Dtd: 13..10..2011 issued by the Superintendent, Dist. Hospital.
Documents for the Opposite party
Ext. B1: Contingent bill
Ext. B2: Copy of estimate issued by Kerala Decoration work
Ext. B3: Copy of letter Dt: 4..2..2010
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
