DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 10/01/2020
CC/5/2020
Ravi
S/o Parangodan
Puthiyaparambil Veedu
Mannanur (P.O), Kavalappara
Ottapalam, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s K.Sujith Kumar & P.Rajesh)
V/s
Muhammed Haneefa
Parikumpara House, Chunangad
Ottapalam, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv. B.Ravikumar)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Complainant in this case is a retired school teacher and the opposite party is the owner of ‘Dreams Destiny Convention Centre’ Vaniyamkulam, Palakkad. Complainant booked the opposite party’s hall for the wedding reception of his son to be conducted on 25/08/2019. He booked the hall in advance for the reception from 2 p.m onwards on that day for decoration and arrangement of food for the function and the opposite party agreed to that.
Later the complainant came to know that another wedding was also arranged on the same hall on that day in the morning and he pointed out this to the opposite party saying that it will cause inconvenience to the wedding reception to be held on the same day. But the opposite party assured him to provide the hall by 2 pm itself.
On the day of wedding reception, when they reached there at 2 p.m, the opposite party had not make any arrangements to provide the hall. Finally when it was given at 4 p.m the main hall and dining hall was found to be uncleaned. The complainant had to arrange people to clean the hall and it costed an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- The opposite party was duty bound to provide the booked hall in a cleaned condition; but he failed to do so.
In addition to that the bride and groom’s name displayed in the board was that of the wedding in the morning and the opposite party did not provide the arrangements to change the name. Because of this, some of the invitees of complainant’s son’s reception left without attending the function.
Even the bride and groom had to wait for one hour to enter the hall. The complainant had arranged another agency namely ‘Manglya Agency’ for decoration, light & music, Air cooler and Entrance welcome board work and paid an advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- for that. But they could not do their work as the hall was not provided in time and the complainant had to suffer financial loss on account of that.
Due to shortage of time, they could not arrange 9 stalls of food which they planned for the reception. Further the Auditorium was booked including the vessels and as they could not give it in time, the complainant had to hire this from ‘Alankar Furniture Hires’ which caused an additional expense of Rs. 35,000/-
Further many invitees left the function without having food as there was delay in arranging the food. The guests could not enjoy the food and many left and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,25,000/- in this matter alone.
Vehicles arranged for bringing the guests from complainant’s residence had to wait for long time causing additional financial burden of Rs. 10,000/-
The complainant suffered a total loss of Rs. 2,38,000/- due to non-providing of the hall in time. All these happened due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
So he filed this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to pay
- Rs. 2,38,000/- as compensation for the losses suffered together with interest at 12% and
- To pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him together with cost of the litigation.
2. On receiving notice from this Commission, the opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. The opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint. According to him, the complainant is not a consumer as he did not approach the opposite party for booking the hall and the opposite party had no connection with him. One Mr. Kathiresh called him and booked the hall for the marriage reception to be conducted on 25/08/2019. The opposite party informed him about the booking of the hall in the morning session upto 2 p.m. Mr. Kathiresh informed that they want the hall only after 4 pm. He booked the hall knowing fully that the hall will be given to them after 4 p.m.
There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party had negotiated the advance, rent and other conditions with Mr. Kathiresh and not with the complainant.
The opposite party had confirmed the timings of wedding in the morning in the presence of Mr. Kathiresh and he had no objection in that. Moreover he told that the reception will get crowded by 5 p.m. On believing the words, the opposite party had given the booking to Mr. Kathiresh and the hall and dining area were cleaned and vacated before 4p.m. The opposite party had given the stage, hall and dining hall to the complainant after cleaning 4 P.M itself. Decoration, Light and Music, etc., were arranged by the marriage party in the morning and the complainant together and they had given the contract to ‘Mangalya Agencies’. The opposite party is not responsible for any deficiency in service on their part. Regarding the hiring of vessels opposite party’s contention is that normally the vessels in the hall is sufficient for cooking. But the complainant arranged some additional stalls of food and for that only he had to arrange vessels from outside.
Some of the relatives and friends of the complainant created some issues in the hall and tried to manhandle the Manager. Due to the non-attendance of the guest to the reception there was huge wastage of food. The complainant left the place without clearing it or giving it to any charity homes and the opposite party had incurred an expense of Rs.7,500/- in cleaning this. Some of the invitees of the wedding reached the place early and due to the obstruction caused by them in parking, the wedding party in the morning had inconvenience and they deducted Rs. 5,000/- from the rent.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had not sustained any loss due to the acts of the opposite party and he is not entitled to the reliefs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
3. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986? (This Act was in force at the time of filing of this complaint).
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any, as cost and compensation.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3 marked from his side. Opposite party did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents. So evidence closed. Both parties filed notes of argument.
5. Point No: 1
The opposite party’s contention is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party and he is not a ‘Consumer’ of opposite party as the booking and other related things are done by another person.
As per the Definition clause 2(d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, consumer means “any person who hires or avails of any service....... and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person”.
Here another person had booked the hall for the wedding reception of complainant’s son and being a beneficiary of such service, complainant herein is well within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act. So Point No: 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
6. Point No: 2
Complaint averments are to the effect that complainant booked opposite party’s hall for the wedding reception to be conducted on 25/08/2019 well in advance. The time allotted to him was from 2 p.m onwards on that day.
Later he noticed that another wedding function also was there in the hall on the same day in the morning time. When asked about this, the opposite party assured that the hall will be vacated and given to them from 2 p.m as agreed. Believing these words, they made all arrangements. But when they reached the hall on that day, the hall was not vacated and later when the hall was provided after 4 p.m; it was not in a cleaned condition. The complainant had to clean the hall by arranging people causing additional expenses.
Further while booking hall, the vessels were also booked for reception. As the opposite party could not provide that, the complainant was forced to hire it from other place. The non-availability of the hall in time had caused many inconveniences and many people left without attending the function and without having food. So the complainant suffered huge loss and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite party.
7. Opposite party’s contention is that the hall booking and other connected things are agreed between opposite party and one Mr. Kathiresh. The opposite party had already informed him that the wedding hall was booked in the morning upto 2 p.m for another wedding function. He agreed that and informed that they need the hall from 4 p.m onwards and the crowd will be there only after 5 p.m. Further the opposite party, Mohanan, who booked the hall in the morning and Kathiresh had a meeting 3 days prior to the function for the smooth arrangement of these two functions. As agreed, they have vacated the hall before 4 p.m after cleaning it. The hall decoration, light & music, air cooler and welcome board were arranged by both parties together after discussion.
At the time of booking, they informed that food is arranged with catering and later in the meeting held before 3 days of the function only, Kathiresh told that they are going to prepare food in the hall. The opposite party had arranged another kitchen for that and provided vessels. Actually the complainant’s relatives/friends created some issues causing inconveniences. The complainant left the hall leaving the leftover food after reception, and the opposite party had to clean this by expending Rs. 7,500/-
8. The complainant produced 3 documents which were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the wedding invitation letter. In this the time of reception is shown as 4 p.m – 7 p.m. Ext. A2 is the receipt issued by ‘Mangalya Agencies’ dated 25/08/2019 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- Ext. A3 is the receipt issued by ‘Alankar Furniture Hires’ dated 30/08/2019 for an amount of Rs. 28,230/-
9. Even though opposite party contends that as per the agreement, the hall had to be vacated by 4 p.m, he did not adduce any evidence to prove this. The opposite party failed to file proof affidavit even after several chances being given. Even though he produced 2 documents along with application to accept it, it was rejected as they did not serve copy to the other side. So no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the opposite party to prove their case. The opposite party could have cross examined the complainant, Mr. Kathiresh and the proprietor of ‘Mangalya Agencies’ to bring out the veracity of their contention regarding booking time, Decoration arrangement and other related matters. But they failed to adduce any cogent evidence.
10. As per Ext. A1, the time of reception was fixed at 4 p.m to 7 p.m. So in the normal course hall has to be vacated at least two hours before for making the necessary arrangements. The opposite party’s contention that the time agreed at the time of booking for the reception to be held at 4 p.m is from 4 p.m onwards is unbelievable. The contention put forth by the complainant appears to be more probable. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing the service in time and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that.
11. Points 3 & 4
Complainant’s contention is that he suffered additional expenses due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant produced a receipt issued by Mangalya Agencies for an amount Rs. 30,000/- which is marked as Ext. A2. His claim is that the agency could not provide their service such as stage decoration, Light & music, Entrance wall, etc., due to the act of the opposite party in vacating the hall very late. But no evidence is adduced in support of this. He produced another receipt issued by ‘Alankar Furniture Hires’ for an amount of Rs. 28,230/- which is marked as Ext. A3. His claim is that he had to arrange vessels from that shop due to the delay in vacating the hall by the opposite party by expending additional amount, but no evidence is adduced to prove this.
Even though the complainant had enumerated a list of events failed to be provided by the opposite party, and the expenses incurred by him due to that, he had not adduced supportive evidences to prove that. He claims Rs. 2,38,000/- together with 12 % interest for the losses suffered by him alone and 7 lakh as compensation. We are not inclined to allow the expenses in the absence of proper evidence.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay
- Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service.
- Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
- Rs. 15,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant : Nil
Ext. A1 - Wedding invitation letter.
Ext. A2 - Receipt issued by ‘Mangalya Agencies’ dated 25/08/2019.
Ext. A3 - Receipt issued by ‘Alankar Furniture Hires’ dated 30/08/2019.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Rs. 15,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
