29^th day of  November 2014

                                       C.C.282/09  filed on 15/4/09

Complainant:        Jeevansahai Cultural and Charitable Trust, Kodali,

                             Pady.P.O., Mukundapuram Taluk,  rep. by Chairman

                             Subramannian.

                             (By Adv.Gracy,  Irinjalakuda)

Respondents:        1. Vidyadharan Master, Music Director, Sarovaram,

                                 Arattupuzha.P.O., Thrissur.

                             2. James, Vattaparambil House,  Inchakundu.P.O.,

                                 Mukundapuram Taluk.

                             (By Adv.V.K.Prakashan, Thrissur)

                                                O R D E R

By  Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President:

          The case of complainant in brief is that the complainant institution is a cultural charitable trust constituted on 3/3/05.  The purpose of the trust is ‘Jeeva Karunya Pravarthanam’.  The complainant trust conducted a music programme on 28/3/09 in the leadership of 1^st respondent.  The 2^nd respondent had arranged 1^st respondent.  1^st respondent promised that he will conduct the programme and will participate  idea star singer fame Amrita Suresh along with other 15 singers in the programme.  He also promised to participate Sri.Jayaraj Warrier.  1^st respondent provided the photos of Jayaraj Warrier and Amrita Suresh to complainant.  On 25/1/08 an amount of Rs.10,000/- was accepted by 1^st respondent as advance and told that the remuneration for Amrita Suresh is Rs.25,000/- and the total amount comes to Rs.50,000/-.  It was also promised that the balance amount will be paid after the programme.  The programme notice was  printed and sent to singer Amrita Suresh.  Before a week 1^st respondent demanded Rs.20,000/- and on 20/3/09 the amount was given to him.  Before starting the programme 1^st respondent wanted the balance amount and the said amount was also given and vouchers executed by him.  But Amrita Suresh did not attend the function and it was told that she will  late because of her marriage engagement function.  But 1^st respondent announced in the stage before the  audience that Amrita Suresh will not attend the function.  He did so without the concurrence of complainant and the organizers.  1^st respondent suppressed this fact without intimating the complainant.  This act is a deficiency in service of 1^st respondent.  More over there were participation of only three persons instead of 15 singers.  The programme was low standard and not at all impressive.  The audience became angered and damaged chairs etc.  All these  were happened because of the deficiency in service of 1^st respondent.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter averments of respondents are that the complainant approached 1^st respondent and stated their intention of the organization and ultimately 1^st respondent agreed to  conduct the musical programme and the remuneration was  fixed as Rs.2,00,000/-.  But the 1^st respondent did never undertake to participate Kumari.Amrita Suresh in the musical programme.  It is an absolute lie.  1^st respondent being a well known conductor is having his own choice artists, male and female and instrumentalists.  The allegation that the 1^st respondent agreed to stage the singers including Kumari. Amrita Suresh is not correct.  He did not know Kumari. Amrita Suresh.  1^st respondent is a music director and Mr.Jayaraj Warrier is his friend.  The complainant pressed 1^st respondent to  get the service of Sri.Jayaraj Warrier on that day and 1^st respondent  told the complainant that it can be arranged  provided Mr.Warrier is having no other programme.  1^st respondent did never give the photos of Amrita Suresh and Jayaraj Warrier. The 1^st respondent did not make any promise.  He did not get any advance as stated in the complaint.  He does not know the remuneration of Amrita Suresh.  The total remuneration of 1^st respondent, Rs.2,00,000/- was reduced to Rs.1.5 lakh taking into consideration  of the financial  constraint of complainant.  The statement that Rs.50,000/- is the total consideration to 1^st respondent is not at all correct.  Not even a single pie was paid before the programme.  It was because of the interference of 2^nd respondent.  1^st respondent has conducted so many musical programmes through  out Kerala, India and foreign countries without any complaint.  This is the first time 1^st respondent is being enmeshed in a totally false,  frivolous and vexatious case by a party with a bogus background.  He conducted the programme so well  much to the delight of the audience.  There was a key board, two guitars, two thabalas, one flute, one rhythm pad, four male and three female singers.  The artists were  brought from  Kozhikode, Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram.  Mr.Jayaraj Warrier also performed on that night.  There was absolutely no occasion for the  1^st respondent to excuse for absence of Amrita Suresh.  It is a misleading statement.  1^st respondent has never   behaved the complainant irresponsibly and indecently.  He knew about the programme in full.  Even though the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1.5 lakh to 1^st respondent only Rs.50,000/- was paid  after the programame and  that too in the midst unruly  behaviour of the complainant’s people.  They also obtained some blank papers from 1^st respondent.  The respondents have never offered to bring 15 singers.  The programme was well appreciated by the entire audience.  There is no deficiency in service committed by these respondents.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondents?

2) If so reliefs and costs ?

          4. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, RW1 and RW2 and Exhibits P1 to P13.

          5. Points: The complainant is a cultural and charitable trust and wanted to conduct a musical programme  in connection with their charitable activities.  2^nd respondent contacted with 1^st respondent and arranged him to conduct a musical night  on 28/3/09.  It is the case that 1^st respondent promised to participate  Kumari.Amrita Suresh, Idea star singer fame   in the programme and also promised to participate Sri.Jayaraj Warrier.  According to complainant the photos of Amrita Suresh and Jayaraj Warrier were given by 1^st respondent to print in the notice.  It was  printed and notice was sent to  Amrita Suresh also.  The notice is produced by complainant before the Forum and marked as Exhibits P2 and P5.  There are two notices and both are different.  But both are for the same programme.  In Exhibit P2 notice and in Exhibit P5 the photos of 1^st respondent, Sri.Jayaraj Warrier and Amrita Suresh are printed.  According to complainant the photos were given by 1^st respondent. But the respondent has taken the contention that no photos printed   by   1^st   respondent   and   no   promise   made   to      participate

Amrita Suresh in the programme.  It is the definite case of complainant that since Amrita Suresh was not participated  the programme became unsuccessful and people were became violent.  According to complainant people destroyed chairs and behaved  rudely.  The Chairman of complainant institution was examined as PW1 and he deposed that 1^st respondent promised to participate  Amrita Suresh.  He also deposed that the photo of Amrita Suresh was provided by 1^st respondent.  It is the definite case of complainant that the photos  of Amrita Suresh and Jayaraj Warrier were provided by 1^st respondent.  The records would lead that 1^st respondent had provided photos of Amrita Suresh and Jayaraj Warrier.  RW2 also taken the stand that it is incorrect that 1^st respondent did not promise to participate Amrita Suresh.  It is the version of RW1 that he has the practice of providing photos of him and the participants.  So the case of complainant that 1^st respondent provided photos is seen true.  It can be seen that RW1 taken the version that the notice brought by complainant contained the photo of Amrita Suresh and then he asked about it and they told that she is a guest in the programme.  This version of RW1 is not at all believable  because RW1 is a well known artist and music director and without his knowledge a singer like Amrita Suresh will not be got participated in a function which is conducting strictly  on his leadership.  It is also his version that he  announced that Amrita Suresh will not attend the function.  If that be so what is the necessity  of him to announce it.

          6. With regard to the remuneration  of 1^st respondent there is dispute that, according to 1^st respondent his  remuneration is 2 lakhs.  But he agreed to accept 1.5 lakh because of  the financial constraint of complainant Trust.  But it is the case of complainant that the remuneration fixed was Rs.50,000/- which includes the amount promised  to be given to Amrita Suresh.  It is the case of RW1 that the respondent got  blank signed papers.  It is incorrect because there is no steps on the part of 1^st respondent to take any legal action against obtaining of blank signing papers from him.  The complainant produced vouchers signed by 1^st respondent and marked as Exhibit P1 series.  As per Exhibit P1 series Rs.50,000/- was accepted by 1^st respondent.  There is nothing to disbelieve Exhibit P1 series and is seen genuine documents.  According to PW1 Exhibit P1 series amounts were collected from the public.  He also deposed that the remuneration  wanted by 1^st respondent is Rs.50,000/-. PW2 also deposed that it is  incorrect that the remuneration wanted by 1^st respondent is not given.  It is the version of RW1 that he had signed in Exhibit P1 series vouchers.  Later he added he signed in blank vouchers.  He agreed that Rs.50,000/- was accepted from the complainant.  But it is his version that after the programme the complainant  threatened to sign in the documents.  But this view is not at all believable.  Because he is  a very famous person   and Police was also there in the premises.  If there was any threatening on the part of organizers he can very well approach the Police.  RW2 is a person who had arranged RW1 to the programme  and deposed that he knows Rs.50,000/- was accepted by 1^st respondent to the programme.  It is to be noted that  1^st respondent did not produce any document to show his remuneration.  But it is his version that he knows that complainant institution is conducting  charitable activities.

          7. The respondent disputed the very purpose of the complainant institution by calling it is a fake Trust.  But the complainant produced several documents to show the activities of the Trust.  More over RW1 admitted that he knows it is a Trust doing charitable activities.   RW2 is a life member of the Trust and he knows very well about the activities.

          8. The complainant wanted to get back Rs.50,000/- which was paid to 1^st respondent along with compensation.  But it is found that complainant is not entitled to get back Exhibit P1 series amounts.  1^st respondent is a well known artist and music director who had conducted his programme for Rs.50,000/-.  It was because of the charitable activities of complainant.  It is true that no document produced by him to show his remuneration.  It is the case of complainant  that Rs.25,000/- was accepted as the remuneration of Amrita Suresh.  It is  difficult for believe.  We found that complainant is not entitled to get Exhibit P1 series amount paid to 1^st respondent.  But the respondents are liable to pay  compensation to complainant because of the deficiency in service committed by them. 

          9. One of the deficiencies is non participation of Amrita Suresh in the programme.  As discussed earlier it is proved that 1^st respondent promised to participate Amrita Suresh in the programme and failed to participate.  He announced the matter in the stage and RW2 is also admitted the same.  The points were discussed earlier and no further discussion is necessary.  More over some calamities were happened there and the complainant had suffered loss.  It is the version of RW1 that he escaped from there.  It would show that  some problem was happened there as stated by complainant.  So  we found that deficiency in service committed by 1^st respondent.  So he is liable to pay compensation to complainant.

          10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the  29^th  day of  November  2014.

                                                                   Sd/-                                                                                          Padmini Sudheesh, President.

          Sd/-

                                                          Sheena.V.V, Member.

          Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar, Member

                             Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ext.P1(a)(b)(c) – Vouchers

Ext.P2 Notice

Ext.P3 Copy of Deed of Trust

Ext.P4 Resolution copy

Ext.P5 Advertisement notice

Ext.P6 Audit report

Ext.P7 Trust deed (original)

Ext.P8 Copy of audit report from April 2005

Ext.P9 Souvenir (original)

Ext.P10 Details of activities from 2005 to 2011

Ext.P11 Album

Ext.P12 Audio CD

Ext.P13 File containing blood group details, pain & paliative care details etc.

Complainant’s witness :

PW1 – Subramannian

PW2 - Baby Antony K

Respondents witness    : 

RW1 –Vidyadharan.PS

RW2 – V.V.James

                                                               Id/-

                                                          President