IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.122/2018
T.R.Venugopalan,
Subha Dale,Jawahar Nagar 132,
Pattathanam, Kollam. : Complainant
(By Adv.Vasavan G.)
V/S
Secretary,Sopanam, : Opposite party
Public Library & Research Centre,
Kollam 691001.
(By Adv.Pramod Prasannan)
ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant was a Sr.Section Engineer in the Indian Railway(Signals and Telecommunication, Work Shop), Coimbature. He is a person physically challenged with 90% disability due to an accident in the early years of his service. Though he is a native of Kollam due to his avocation he had no contact except with his relationship in Kollam.
On 16.11.2017 the complainant with his brother-in -law had approached the opposite party for booking Sopanam Auditorium for the marriage of his daughter. The marriage was proposed to be performed on 25.04.2018 but it was informed
that the date may change if warranted. The opposite party had agreed to his request but asked the complainant to report the change if any at the earliest and given a rent application to the complainant to be filed. Thereafter the opposite party has collected Rs.35,400/- as rent including GST and issued a receipt for the above sum on 16.11.2017. But due to the inconvenience expressed by the bride-groom party the date so fixed had to be altered. Thereafter the complainant along with his brother-in-law had approached the opposite party on 18.11.2017 and requested to change the date fixed day before. Anyway the opposite party straight away rejected the request of the complainant and demanded the complainant to remit a further sum of Rs.35,400/- if the date of marriage to be changed to any other day. The opposite party had reiterated that the day once booked cannot be altered or changed. Since there was no other remedy for the complainant he remitted Rs.35,400/- and also handed over a letter of request for getting the date early fixed to be changed from 25.04.2018 to 04.05.2018. In the meantime a person by name Sudersana Sarma intervened and introduced himself as one of the secretaries of the opposite party assured the complainant that the matter can be settled but nothing has happened. On enquiry it was learnt that the Secretary of Sopanam Auditorium, Sri.Raveendranathan Nair soon after the marriage had fixed date for a talk with him in his residence. But unfortunately due to the ill-health and old age as per and the advice of treating doctor the visitors are not permitted to see him. In this regard the attempts of the complainant turned futile. The complainant had approached the above Mr.Sudersana Sarma who came to settle the matter. But he had retreated his previous stand. Since all attempts were failed the complainant filed the present complaint.
The opposite party filed version admitting the bookings of auditorium by the complainant the alleged conversation between the Secretary of the Sopanam Auditorium as well as the Joint Secretary with regard the change of dates further contended that no written request was submitted by complainant before the opposite party. According to the opposite party the allegations put forth by the complainant is baseless and false hence denied that no intimation is given in time regarding the change of date. The complainant has agreed the terms of the booking and has put his hand to vouch.
The Quilon Public Library & Research Centre is a registered society headed by the Chairman(District Collector, Kollam) the Co-Chairman(Mayor, Kollam Municipal Corporation) and the Hon’ble Secretary, Sri.K.Raveendranathan Nair apart from other officials . From the very beginning Sri.Raveendranathan Nair is
the Honorary Secretary and the policy and the other guidelines of Sopanam Auditorium is formulated by the decisions of the 39 member Governing Body from time to time and the office bearers cannot go beyond the decisions of Governing Body and the General Body. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant is at liberty to conduct the marriage of his daughter according to his wish and capacity and he had done it. The obligation made by the opposite party has been complied with regard to this. The first condition of the contract was signed by the complainant admitting that there will be no refund or alteration of dates along with 12 other conditions. The complainant is not an illiterate layman, but was a railway employee and conversant with the conditions which he has read and only after that he put his hand under it. The opposite party has not collected any money in excess from the complainant for his booking on 25.04.2018. The GST collected was properly remitted to the Government. No mental agony has caused to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether There is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by charging the complainant twice for booking the auditorium of the opposite party in connection with the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid in for the 2nd booking of Auditorium?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P1 to P4 documents.
Evidence on the side of the opposite party consists of documentary evidence of Ext.D1. No oral evidence has been adduced by the opposite party.
Heard the counsel for the complainant. The opposite party’s Advocate has filed notes of argument but not advanced any oral argument.
Point No.1 to 3
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these three points are considered together. The following are the admitted facts in this case. The complainant along with his brother-in-law booked the Sopanam auditorium on 16.11.2017 for conducting the marriage of the daughter of the complainant. The Auditorium was book to 25.04.2018 to perform the marriage ceremony. At the time of booking opposite party has collected Rs.35,400/- as rent including GST and issued Ext.P1 receipt. The complainant has also filled up the rent application served by the opposite party and given to the opposite party along with the amount by receiving the amount the opposite party has issued Ext.P1.receipt. However due to some inconvenience expressed on the part of bride-groom the date of marriage was altered to 04.05.2018. The complainant approached the opposite party and demanded change the date from 25.04.2018 to 04.05.2018. But the opposite party denied the request and directed the complainant to rebook
the hall by paying the same amount again. But as the complainant no other remedy rebooked the hall by paying Rs.35,400/- again. Sudersana Sarma who introduced himself as one of the secretary of the opposite party auditorium committee given an assurance to the complainant that he would settle the matter as early as possible but nothing happened. Now the question to be decide whether the opposite party is justified in collecting Rs.35,400/- again for rebooking the auditorium by cancelling the earlier booking. According to the opposite party once the booking is made for the specific date that date cannot be altered or changed and if there is any change of date the complainant has to pay booking amount again and rebook the hall. But the complainant would contend that even on 16.11.2017 when the hall was booked initially he informed the opposite party that there is chance or changing the date for marriage and opposite party had agreed the request of the complainant in case there is any change the date has to be reported as early as possible. By agreeing the same the complainant filled up the Ext.P1 application and paid Rs.35,400/- including GST and booked the hall for the said purpose on 16.11.2017.
It is true that in Ext.P1 receipt it is stated “this amount will not be refund on any account ”. The complainant has no case that the amount collected for initial booking on 16.11.2017 is to be returned or refund. But his prayer is to adjust the above amount for the subsequent booking of the Auditorium since he could not carry out marriage function on the date booked on account of the inconvenience expressed by the bridegroom’s party. The only request of the complainant is to change the date of booking from 25.04.2018 to 04.05.2018. Ext.P3 is the receipt issued for collection of Rs.35,400/- on the subsequent booking on 18.11.2017. The number of Ext.P1 receipt and Ext.P3 receipt are consecutive numbers. The number of Ext.P1 receipt dated 16.11.2017 is 2547 and number of Ext.P3 receipt
received on 18.11.2017 is 2548. It is clear from the available materials that after two days of the first booking the complainant approached the opposite party for change of booking. Nobody has booked the Sopanam Auditorium after 16.11.2017 since Ext.P3 contains just subsequent number of Ext.P1. Hence it is clear that opposite party’s opportunity to let the auditorium to any other person was not prevented by the blocking of the auditorium for 2 or 3 days by the complainant. It is further to be pointed out that the request to change the booking date is made by the complainant more 5 months before the actual date booked. In the circumstances there is no chance of causing any loss on account of the change of booking by the complainant. Even the opposite party has no case that as the complainant has changed the booking to subsequent date he could not allow or deliver the hall for any function on 25.04.2018 or he has avoided the booking of anybody else and allow the hall to remain vacant for the complainant and thereby he sustained any loss. It is clear from the available evidence that the booking was changed well in advance ie. within two days of the initial booking. In the circumstances there no bar in opposite party to allot the hall to somebody else on the earlier booking date ie. 25.04.2018 made by the complainant as per the Ext.P1 receipt.
Even if it is written in Ext.P1 receipt the amount will not be refund any account the same is not having application on all situation. If the opposite party has sustained any loss as he could not let out the auditorium to anybody else on account of the detention of the hall due to the booking by the complainant then he can very well say that he sustained loss on account of the change of booking and hence he is not expected to return the booking amount. Here in this case within two days of 1st booking the same was cancelled and rebooked the same to another date.
It is pertinent to point out the evidence of the complainant in the regard. According to PW1 even at the initial booking he told the opposite party that there is chance of change of date of marriage. Thereupon the response of opposite party was that “AXp kmc-an-söpw F¶m hnhcw F{Xbpw t\cs¯ Adn-bn-¡-W-sa¶pw FXr-I£n ]d-ªn-«p-f-f-Xm-Wv.” The above evidence would indicate that the complainant has informed the opposite party that there is chance for extending the date of marriage.
It is further to be pointed out that the opposite party has also not met any cleaning charge, electricity or water charge due to be change of booking by the complainant. In short the opposite party has not sustained any monitory or any other type of loss due to the change of booking within 2 days of the first booking.
However it is brought out in evidence that out of the amount on Rs.35,400/- collected from the complainant towards booking charge as per Ext.P1 receipt an amount of Rs.5,400/- was GST and the same was remitted to the Government. Therefore the opposite party has spent Rs.5,400/- collected as booking charged for the Auditorium and in the circumstances the claim of the complainant that he is entitled to get refund of the entire amount is having no merit. The maximum that
the complainant seeks to refund is rent portion of the booking charge ie. Rs.30,000/- since the opposite party has already paid Rs.5,400/- towards GST. In the circumstances we hold that the opposite party ought to have received Rs.30,000/- only towards the 2nd booking as the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.30,000/- from out of the first booking charge.
It is brought out in evidence as the opposite party has collect the very same amount of Rs.35,400/- for the subsequent booking of the Sopanam Auditorium for the same marriage ceremony of the daughter of the complainant though the change of date of marriage was effected within two days of the earlier booking. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant has sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss due to the above act of the opposite party. According to the complainant he paid the amount and rebooked the hall as he has no other way. In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation and costs of the proceedings. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.4
In the result complaint stands allowed.
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.30,000/- from out of the first booking charge collected as per Ext.P1 document to the complainant within 45 days from today.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
- The 0pposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
- If the opposite party fails to comply with the above directions within 45 days, the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.30,000/-+7,500/- with interest @ 9 % from the date of 1st booking of the auditorium along with costs from opposite party and the assets of the Sopanam Auditorium.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 8th day of August 2022.
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Venugopalan
PW2 : Anilkumar T.
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Receipt No.2547 dated 16.11.2017
Ext.P2 : Letter of request dated 18.11.2017
Ext.P3 : Receipt No.2548 dated 18.11.2017
Ext.P4 : Passbook
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.D1 : Documentary evidence.
