UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. V MURALEEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30. 11. 2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing appeal against the order dated 23. 5. 1997 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to Laxmi Vilas Hotel-respondent to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 11,000 as damages towards mental agony, medical treatment, etc. to the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner wanted to arrange a dinner on the occasion of birthday of her grand son on 28. 9. 1994 in a hotel. On being approached, the respondent hotel assured the petitioner of the supply of best food and service. Rate for 140 participants was settled at Rs. 115 per participant and the petitioner allegedly paid advance of Rs. 4,000 on 27. 9. 1994 for which no receipt was issued. Dinner on the said date continued till late night. It was alleged that the guests present in the dinner expressed dis-satisfaction as regards quality of the food served. Food supplied was sub-standard and stale. In the morning on 29. 9. 1994, the petitioner had vomiting and loose motions. Her family members too fell sick. They were treated by Dr. B. K. Jain for food poisoning. J. P. Mathur, Narendra Kumar Aggarwal, Satish Jain, Ashok Kumar, Vishambhar Dayal, Om Prakash, K. B. Garg, Kumari Anuj Arora, Smt. Manorama Arora, Dilip Singh, Shri Pandey Saheb and others who took the dinner, also suffered from food poisoning and taken treatment at different places. Alleging deficiency in service, the petitioner filed complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 towards mental agony, Rs. 50,000 towards treatment, etc. and cost which was contested by the respondent hotel. Written version on the affidavit of Madan Lal Sharma was filed denying receipt of advance money of Rs. 4,000 on 27. 9. 1994, settling the rate @ Rs. 115 per participant, dinner having been served in the hotel on 28. 9. 1994 and the petitioner and others having fallen sick as alleged. It was stated that the petitioner is not a consumer nor the respondent a service provider and the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ).

(3.) IN support of the complaint, the affidavits of Satish Chandra Jain, Ashok Kumar Sharma, J. P. Mathur, Narendra Kumar Aggarwal, Dilip Singh and Smt. Manorma Arora were filed before the District Forum along with the complaint. Since the written version filed on behalf of hotel was on the affidavit of Madan Lal Sharma, the respondent did not file any other affidavit by way of evidence. Rebutting the affidavit of Madan Lal Sharma, the petitioner filed her affidavit.