VASANTHAGIRI AGENCIES Vs. R MUNUSAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are of the view that the appeal has to be accepted. The complainant s case is that he arranged for the celebration of his younger son s marriage. He wanted to fix a music programme at the reception of his son s marriage. The 2nd opposite party who got the marriage invitation printed, recommended the 1st opposite party and, therefore, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and fixed the 1st opposite party for the light music programme. But the 1st opposite party failed to turn up on that day with the result the complainant was put to considerable mental agony and he had to cut a sorry figure in the presence of friends and relatives. Hence, the present complaint is laid.

(2.) THE lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to repay the advance of Rs. 3,000/ - with interest at 12% and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - with cost of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order, the 2nd opposite party has now come up with this appeal. From the very complaint, it is clear that the 2nd opposite party recommended the name of the 1st opposite party when the complainant wanted to arrange for the music programme at the reception of his son s marriage. Therefore, it is clear that the only act the 2nd opposite party did was he recommended the name of the 1st opposite party. We find that the complainant later approached the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party gave his consent and noted down the date. It is also alleged that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - as advance on 9.9.1998 to the 1st opposite party. From the records produced we also find a receipt for the sum of Rs. 3,000/ - received by Kannan. The 2nd opposite party has given a separate voucher on 9.9.1998. The complainant himself has stated that he paid the sum only to the 1st opposite party. It cannot be that for the payment received by the 1st opposite party the 2nd opposite party would give any receipt. Nor the 1st oposite party would give receipt without receiving the amount. It is also to be pointed out that the complainant relies on Ex. A2, a receipt issued by Vasanthagiri Agencies. The original receipt is not produced. Conveniently the complainant has produced only the xerox copy. It simply says that it received a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. Admittedly the complainant got marriage invitation printed by the 2nd opposite party from whom the wedding cards were purchased. Therefore, it could be only relatable to the amount payable or paid by the complainant towards purchase and printing of wedding invitations. There is nothing to show that he promised that the 1st opposite party would be present to give performance. On the other hand, the record would speak for the fact that the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party, fixed the date with him and paid the amount directly to him. Merely mentioning the name of the person as the person suitable for giving performance a liability cannot be fastened upon the said person. There are no allegations in the complaint nor there are any document to show that the 2nd opposite party had anything to do with it or he acted as an agent or that he made any promises or that he received the amount of Rs. 3,000/ -. Therefore, the order of the lower Forum cannot be sustained at all as against the 2nd opposite party. That apart, there is another technical flaw in the complaint. It is stated in the complaint that the 2nd opposite party is represented by proprietor Sairam. From the records produced by the opposite party, we find that the proprietor is one Vasanthi Arunagiri. Therefore, it is clear that Vasanthagiri Agency cannot be represented by a person who is not the proprietor and a person who is described as a proprietor is not anyway connected with the Vasanthagiri Agency and, therefore, the complaint as against the 2nd opposite party is thus not maintainable in law. Therefore, viewed from any background, it is clear that the order passed by the lower Forum as against the 2nd opposite party cannot be maintained at all.