H R GILL Vs. SURYAVANSHI KSHATRIYA DNYATI SAMAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri H. R. Gill a practicing Advocate made this com- plaint against the opposite parties claiming compensation for hardships and sufferings of as a result of deficiency in the service and also on account of unfair trade practices. The opposite party No.1 is a registered public Trust and maintains a marriage hall and other premises. Mr. Suresh Kowali is the chairman of the Social Institution. The complainant alleges that the Sabhagruha (marriage hall) is hired out on rent to the public for social functions as a commercial venture. The complainant had booked and reserved the said hall on 7.3.90 for the wedding and reception of his son Dr. Harendra Gill to be performed on 5.6.1990. He made a payment of Rs.3001 under two separate receipts at the time of booking on 7.3.1990. According to the complainant it was represented on behalf of the institution that the amount of Rs.3001/-paid of the complainant was towards the full and final rent charges for the hall. It was also informed to the complainant on behalf of the institution that M/s Laxmi Caterers has the monopoly to arrange the decoration in the hall. However, the complainant was at liberty to engage any caterer of his choice. The complainant alleged that after booking the aforesaid hall, he printed the marriage and reception invitations and distributed them. According to the complainant, Mr. Raut on behalf of the institution repeatedly persuaded the complainant on telephone to direct the complainant's caterer to see him personally or else the booking would be cancelled. When the complainant enquired from Mr. Raut, a day earlier to the marriage about his purpose of contacting the caterer, Mr. Raut informed the complainant that in less the complainant hired the cooking utensils from the institution, the booking be cancelled and the advance paid would be forfeited and directed the complainant to contact the Chairman, opposite party no.2. According to the complainant he remained busy in the preparations for marriage for 23 days and whilst the marriage celebration was in progress on 5.6.90. Mr. Raut demanded payment of Rs.800/- towards the utensils charges. According to the complainant due to the continued persuasion of the opposite party, under duress he agreed to make the payment Rs.800/- but had offered to make the payment by cheque. According to complainant Mr. Raut and two members of the institution one Mr. Raju Kore and one carpenter rudely shouted that the payment must be made in cash. The complainant alleged that taking undue advantage of the situation, the power supply on the ground floor was switched off by the management. The complainant further alleged that the guest and the invitees taking food faced a total black out. The distinguished guests included the members of the Bench and Bar, Government officials and other relatives of the complainant. All were seriously inconvenienced due the high handed act of opposite party which was deliberately done to extract additional money over and above the contractual and agreed upon amount. According to complainant since he was the host and the invitees were caught in an unprecedented situation and he had no other alternative but to accede to the unjust, unreasonable and unlawful demand of money by hands requested Mr. Raut and others to accept the cheque of Rs.800/- and wrote out the cheque of Rs.800/- and handed over to Mr. Raut. A receipt of which is filled at Annexure 'c of the complaint. According to the complainant, this act on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiencies in the service while hiring out the hall. It is further alleged that it amounts to extracting money from the consumers taking undue advantage of their helplessness on such occasions. The complainant, therefore, claimed refund of Rs.800/- paid on 5.6.90 with 18% p. a. interest. The complainant further alleges that since he was harassed and humiliated he suffered great injury to his reputation and, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1 lakh as compensation for defamation of the family.

(2.) The complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum, Bombay claiming total compensation of Rs.93,800/-. Letter on he made an application for amendment. Considering the proposed amendment the amount was to exceed Rs.1 lakh and therefore, the District Forum, Bombay by an order dated 5.10.90 returned the complaint to the complainant for caning out amendment and for its presentation before the appropriate authority. The complainant, therefore, presented the same complaint to the State Commission on 12.10.90, after effecting the necessary amendment to his original complaint. A notice u/sec.13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act was served on the opposite parties. The opposite party sent their written version joined on 20.12.90. Inter alia, in the written version the opposite parties contended that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as there is no cause of action. It has been submitted that the opposite party No. list the public charitable trust and the booking of the hall was made subject to the rules of the institution and the collection of utensils charges were justified and that the complainant was made aware about it. The opposite parties denied the instance of switching off the lights and humiliation suffered by the complainant at marriage party on the date of incident. According to the opposite parties the complaint is false and made with the object of tarnishing the image of the institution in the eyes of the public.

(3.) The complainant filed a rejoinder after the version of the opposite parties was received and also filed his affidavit and the six affidavits of his witnesses. He also filed the zerox copies of the receipts. The opposite parties files their affidavits through its employees and not by any of the office-bearers.