DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023
Filed on: 24/12/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 507/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
ISDC Services India Private Limited, Rep by Mr. Santhakumar, Head of Administration, Nirmal Infopark, Infopark P O. Kakkanad, Kochi-682042.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- M/s Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd. Sangamam By-Lane III. Padivattom, Edapally P.O.- Kochi-682024.
- Madhusoodanan A V (Managing Director) Sarada Caters, Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd. Sangamam By-Lane III, Padivattom, Edapally PO. Kochi-682024.
- Susmitha ,(Director) Sarada Caters, Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, Sangamam By-Lane III, Padivattom, Edapally PO. Kochi-682024.
- Ambu C Rajendran Manager, Sarada Caters Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd. Sangamam By-Lane III. Padivattom, Edapally PO. Kochi-682024.
FINAL O R D E R
DB.Binu, President:
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant operates an education campus in Kochi that includes a multimedia institute, and a Kochi campus of Jain Deemed University. They had arranged a festive celebration for the Onam festival, including a feast for their staff and students. They received a call from a catering service called Sarada Caters, owned by Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Private Limited, offering to provide food for the event. However, on the day of the celebration, the catering service failed to deliver the food despite multiple assurances. It was later discovered that the supplier had lied about traffic congestion and was supplying food to other buyers instead. The complainant confronted the manager of the catering unit, who claimed that the cook was absent. The police were involved, and it was agreed that the catering unit should compensate the complainant. However, no compensation was received, and subsequent attempts to contact the catering service were met with avoidance and threats. The complainant suffered losses, injuries, hardship, and mental agony due to the supplier's negligence and unfair trade practices.
The complainant requested a refund of Rs.4,98,000/- along with interest. Additionally, they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the losses and injuries caused by the Opposite parties' deficient service, negligence, and unfair trade practices. The complainant also requested the Opposite parties to cover the costs of the legal proceedings
2. Notices
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 8 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-8.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the Resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing Mr. Santhakumar K.P. and appointing him to act on behalf of the Company.
Exhibit A-2: The final menu and rates sent by the Sarada cater to the Onasadya to the complainant dated 03.09.2019.
Exhibit A-3: Purchase order given by the Complainant to Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd. dated 05.09.2019.
Exhibit A-4: Account statement for Account No 4490008700000291 of Punjab National Bank for the period 05.09.2019 to 05.09.2019.
Exhibit A-5: Quotation is given by EVENT FACTORY to ISDC.
Exhibit A-6: Invoice is given by EVENT FACTORY TO ISDC FOR Rs.2,00,000/-.
Exhibit A-7: Extract of bill /invoice issued from FOUR POINTS by Sheraton to ISDC dated 07.09.2019.
Exhibit A-8: Voucher no 112 was given to student welfare dated 6/09/2019 for Rs 1,38,000/-.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced a copy of the account statement for the order of Sadya. (Exhibit A-4). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency of service caused to the complainant due to the inaction of the opposite parties in delivering the Onasadya.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant received a phone call from the 4th opposite party, claiming to be the Manager of Sarada Caters, offering to provide 'Onasadya' (traditional feast) for a large number of people at a reasonable rate. The complainant inquired about the details and was informed that the establishment had the necessary infrastructure and staff to cater to 1500 or more persons. The complainant agreed to the offer, placed an order for 1500 'Onasadya' meals, and transferred an advance payment of Rs. 75,000 to the catering company's bank account.
On the day of the scheduled event, the food did not arrive at the designated time despite assurances from the supplier. The complainant tried to contact the catering unit but received no response. Representatives from the complainant's college visited the catering unit and discovered that there was no traffic block as claimed and that the supplier was delivering food to other buyers instead. The 4th opposite party, Mr. Ambu, admitted that the food couldn't be prepared or delivered due to the absence of a cook.
As a result, the complainant had to make alternate arrangements to feed the students, paying Rs. 100 each to approximately 1380 students as food coupons and arranging food for the guests and staff at a nearby hotel. The complainant demanded compensation from the responsible parties but encountered resistance. The 4th opposite party claimed to be only a manager, and the director disowned responsibility.
During discussions between the complainant, Mr. Ambu, and the police officials called to the campus, it was acknowledged that the catering unit was negligent and should compensate the complainant for the damages caused. However, after the incident, the 4th opposite party avoided the complainant's calls and made threats when they tried to follow up. The complainant concluded that the opposite parties never intended to serve the food and were attempting to cheat them.
The complainant seeks a refund of the advance payment and reasonable compensation for the losses and hardships they have endured. The opposite parties have not denied the incident but have proposed a settlement for a nominal amount, which the complainant finds inadequate. The expenses and losses incurred are summarized as follows:
1.The amount spent on food coupons for 1380 students at Rs 100 per coupon is Rs 1,38,000/-. (Exhibit A-8).
- The amount spent on food for staff and guests at the Four Point Sheraton Hotel is Rs 88,152.34/-.(Exhibit A-7).
- An advance payment of Rs 75,000/- was made for the order of Sadya. (Exhibit A-4).
- An amount of Rs 2,00,000/- was paid to the event management company. (Exhibit A-6).
The complainant organized an Onam celebration on the campus in September. As part of the event, the complainant scheduled a traditional feast called Onasadya on September 6th, 2019. A few days before the feast, the complainant contacted Mr. Ambu, who was the 4th opposite party in the case, to inquire about the rates for the Onasadya. Mr. Ambu offered to provide Onasadya for 1500 people at a rate of Rs. 100/- per person (Exhibit A-2).
The 4th opposite party in the complaint offered to deliver food according to a previously communicated menu to the campus. They also agreed to provide staff to serve the food on plantain leaves to the students and staff. The complainant accepted the offer and sent a formal purchase order for 1500 servings of Onasadya on September 6, 2019, at a total cost of Rs.1,50,000/-. As requested by the fourth opposite party, the complainant transferred an advance amount of Rs.75,000/- to the bank account of Vrudhi Outsourcing Services, the first opposite party (Exhibit A-4).
We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.
The complainant had produced 8 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-8. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties would stand to show their callous attitude, utter negligence, and deficiency of service, for which they are solely answerable.
The emotional attachment of every Malayali to Onasadya is well-known. When someone invites guests for Onasadya and doesn't receive the ordered Onam Sadya, it can be highly frustrating. In such cases, the opposite parties shall be held liable for compensating the complainant for the deficiency in service, as well as any physical harassment and mental agony caused. In this specific scenario, the complainant had scheduled the Onasadya for students as part of the Onam celebration on the campus.
We find the issue Nos. (I), (II), (III), and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
A serious deficiency in service occurred on the part of the opposite parties, leading to the deprivation of students and staff on the campus from experiencing a joyful Onam celebration, including the traditional Onam feast. This deficiency has an impact on their consumer rights.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall refund Rs.1,50,000/-towards the amount spent on “Onasadya” coupons for 1500 students as per the bill produced and advance amount of Rs.75,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party.
- The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs 3, 00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties, and for the mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
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 (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of May, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the Resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing Mr. Santhakumar K.P. and appointing him to act on behalf of the Company.
Exhibit A-2: The final menu and rates sent by the Sarada cater to the Onasadya to the complainant dated 03.09.2019.
Exhibit A-3: Purchase order given by the Complainant to Vrudhi Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd. dated 05.09.2019.
Exhibit A-4: Account statement for Account No 4490008700000291 of Punjab National Bank for the period 05.09.2019 to 05.09.2019.
Exhibit A-5: Quotation is given by EVENT FACTORY to ISDC.
Exhibit A-6: Invoice is given by EVENT FACTORY TO ISDC FOR Rs.2,00,000/-.
Exhibit A-7: Extract of bill /invoice issued from FOUR POINTS by Sheraton to ISDC dated 07.09.2019.
Exhibit A-8: Voucher no 112 was given to student welfare dated 6/09/2019 for Rs 1,38,000/-.
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 507/2019
Order Date: 31/05/2023
