IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Date of filing : 05.01.2016

Date of order : 10/01/2023

PRESENT:

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member

C.C.No.06/2016

COMPLAINANT

G.Padmakumar, S/o.Gopalakrishna Pillai, Girija Mandir, Thottaykkattukara, Aluva, Ernakulam District.

(By Adv.Manoj B.Menon, Adv.Rashmi K.M, Paulin Building, T.D.Road, Ernakulam-682 011)
Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1) Adulux Medicity &Convention Centre Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Adulux Junction, Karukutty, N.H.47, Angamaly, Ernakulam District, Pin-683 576.

2) Antorny David, Manager, (F & B), Adulux Medicity & Convention Centre Pvt. Ltd., Adulux Junction, Karukutty, N.H.47, Angamaly,

Ernakulam, Pin-683 576

(O.p 1 rep.by Adv.Vakkom N.Vijayan, Adv.Aniyan P., Rajaji Road, Kochi-682 035)

F I N A L O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1) A brief history of the complaint is as stated below:

In connection with the marriage of the daughter of the complainant, which was scheduled on 30.08.2015, the complainant booked the convention hall belonging to the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party on 15.05.2015 on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance amount against the final bill to be made in respect of hall rent, arrangement for ‘Nadaswaram’ and the cost of food, to be prepared by ‘Ambiswami’ of Thrissur for the guest to be supplied. The cost of food per plate was fixed as Rs.350/- for serving first grade food to the guests. While paying the advance amount, expecting 1200 guests for the function. The total agreed amount for all the above was Rs.5,76,000/-. However, the expense for hall decoration was not included in the above amount fixed by the parties. The receipt for the payment of advance amount of Rs.1 lakh was promised to be sent by the opposite party, by e-mail. The opposite party did not give receipt for the amount. The opposite party had insisted that the entire amount to be paid as per agreement and the entire amount was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. However, the opposite party did not pay any receipt for the payment made and told the complainant that there is no practice of issuing bill, as huge amount was to be paid as Tax, and had given a statement in white paper showing receipt of the final amount. As against the expected number of guests as 1200, only 850 guests came for the function. But even for them, the food was insufficient. The rice used for the ‘sadhya’ was of poor quality. The food supplied was not of good quality as insisted by the complainant and promised by opposite party. The opposite party did not arrange sufficient number of suppliers to supply the prepared food and the suppliers were not well mannered and humiliated the guests. Not even salt was supplied for the sadhya. There were no repeated servings also. The complainant feels very bad and humiliated due to the arrogant attitude of the employees of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties while serving food. The complainant seeks Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony and deficiency of service. A lawyer notice was also issued by the complainant against the opposite parties. Hence the complainant approached this Commission to redress his grievance and seeking orders directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with the cost of the proceedings.

2) Notice

Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 27.01.2016. In response to the notice received, the opposite parties appeared and filed version resisting the allegations raised by the complainant in the complaint.

3) Version

The opposite parties stated that this complaint is not maintainable as it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is not in dispute that as desired by the complainant, the feast was arranged with Ambiswami of Thrissur. But he is not impleaded as necessary party. The contention that the opposite parties did not give any receipt is absolutely false and incorrect. The opposite parties issued valid receipts to the complainant on each payment made. As per the terms of the agreement the opposite parties arranged Sadhya of Ambiswami for 1200 guests. Only 850 persons participated in the Sadhya. All the items of food were superior quality and entire invitees were given the good without causing any problem to the complainant. The allegation that the opposite parties used inferior quality of rice for sadhya etc are absolutely false and hence denied. There is no whisper from any quarters that the servers were incompetent and inexperienced. The comments made by the complainant with regard to serving of salt and rice were absolutely false. The opposite parties did everything possible and there was no deficiency in service as contemplated by the complainant. It was only after serving the plated food it was informed that the total number of guests who took the food was 850 in the place of 1200. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4) Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the six documents filed from the side of the complainant which is marked as Exbt.A1 to A6. The complainant is cross examined by the opposite parties’ Counsel as ‘PW1’. The complainant filed witness list and one Lalan K.K was examined as ‘PW2’.

The 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and 8 documents filed from the side of the opposite party are marked as Exbt.B1 to B8. The 2^nd opposite party is examined as ‘DW1’ by the complainant’s counsel. On 28/06/2018, opposite party filed I.A. No. 315/2018 to re-open the evidence of opposite party, which was allowed on cost. ‘DW2’ examined and additional documents were marked as Exbt. B 9 to B13 and 14 series (evidence closed)

Heard both sides.

From the available documents and evidences of the case, we have considered the following points.

5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

(1) Whether any deficiency in service or negligence is proved from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant?

(2) If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered Point Nos. (i) and (2) jointly.

We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidence from both sides.

The case of the complainant is that on 15.01.2015 he had booked the convention centre (hall) for the marriage of his daughter on 30.08.2015 and remitted Rs.1,00,000/- as advance payment. The complainant and the opposite parties had agreed to serve Ambiswami’s sadhya and other arrangement for the marriage function at Rs.350/per head for 1200 members as agreed upon by both the parties for Rs.5,76,000/-.

The decoration of the hall was not included in the above said price. Moreover, the opposite parties had not issued the receipt for the advance payment or the balance payment. The opposite parties told that they had not issued bills to the parties because they had to face the tax problem. The agreement was food for 1200 members for the marriage. But physically only 800 members were present for the marriage and for the food. Moreover, the opposite parties had not included all the items of food as agreed at the time of marriage. Before marriage function, the complainant had remitted full amount as agreed at the time of booking. The opposite parties issued the receipt in plain white paper without proper receipt for the payment. The rice was very poor quality and the food items served were not so fasty and so the complainant was ashamed of the action of the opposite party before the guest he invited for the functions.

From the available documents and evidence filed in this case, it can be seen that there were some issues in the marriage function in connection with serving of food and other arrangements of the marriage function. From Exbt.A3 it can be seen that the final bill of Rs.5,76,000/- was issued only in a single plain white paper. There was no proper seal of the opposite party or the name of items in the receipt which was issued by the opposite party and as alleged to be a reputed institution. Hence deficiency of service is proved from the opposite party towards the complainant. All the above facts and circumstances and on evaluation of the evidence of this case we are of the opinion that the complainant had sustained some loss and hardships due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties.

Hence point No. (1) and (2) are found in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:

1) We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, loss and sufferings due to the negligent act of the opposite parties and pay Rs.6000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered vide (1) above shall carry interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 10^th day of January 2023.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party’s Exhibits :

Depositions ::

PW1 :: G. Padmakumar

PW2 :: Lalan K.K.

DW1 :: Antony David

DW2 :; Rajeswari Ranjith

............................